netdev - Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49841E8C.60401@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:49:00 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, berrange@...hat.com,
	et-mgmt-tools@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.

Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:17:44AM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@...mosbay.com) wrote:
>>> getaddrinfo() returns list of addresses and IPv6 was the first one iirc.
>>> Previously it bailed out, but with my change it will try again without
>>> reason for doing this. With the patch I sent based on Eric's observation
>>> things should be fine.
>> Problem is your patch is wrong Evgeniy, please think about it litle bit more
>> and resubmit it. 
> 
> No, patch should be ok. And its part which moves bsockets around was
> added because of your complaints, that it is written into read-mostly
> cache line. It is not a fix and has nothing with the problem at all.
> 
>> Take the time to run this $0.02 program, before and after your upcoming fix :
> 
> It is not a fix, but enhancement, which really has nothing with the bug
> in question :)
> Fix is to return an error if socket binding does not use the heuristic.
> 
>> offset of bsockets being 0x18 or 0x20 is same result : bad because in
>> same cache line than ehash, ehash_locks, ehash_size, ehash_locks_mask,
>> bhash, bhash_size, unless your cpu is a Pentium.
> 
> Attached patch makes difference, I'm curious if it ever make any
> difference in the benchmarks.
> 
>> Also, I suggest you change bsockets to something more appropriate, eg a
>> percpu counter.
> 
> I thought on that first, but found that looping over every cpu and
> summing the total number of allocated/freed sockets will have noticebly
> bigger overhead than having loosely maintaned number of sockets.
> 
> For the reference. This patch has nothing with the bug we discuss here,
> the proper patch (without need to move bsockets around) was sent
> earlier, which forces port selection codepath to return error when new
> selection heuristic is not used.
> 
> --- ./include/net/inet_hashtables.h.orig	2009-01-31 12:27:41.000000000 +0300
> +++ ./include/net/inet_hashtables.h	2009-01-31 12:28:15.000000000 +0300
> @@ -134,7 +134,6 @@
>  	struct inet_bind_hashbucket	*bhash;
>  
>  	unsigned int			bhash_size;
> -	int				bsockets;
>  
>  	struct kmem_cache		*bind_bucket_cachep;
>  
> @@ -150,6 +149,8 @@
>  	 */
>  	struct inet_listen_hashbucket	listening_hash[INET_LHTABLE_SIZE]
>  					____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> +	
> +	int				bsockets ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>  
>  };
>  
> 


It appears you are always right, I have nothing to say then.

Stupid I am.

I vote for plain revert of your initial patch, since you are anaware
of performance problems it introduces. Then, probably nobody cares
of my complaints, so dont worry.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html