netdev - Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

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: <20090422.022120.211323498.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	therbert@...gle.com
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, dada1@...mosbay.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:52:07 -0700

> That is possible and don't think the design of our patch would
> preclude it, but I am worried that each time the mapping from a
> connection to a CPU changes this could cause of out of order
> packets.  I suppose this is similar problem to changing the RSS hash
> mappings in a device.

Yes, out of order packet processing is a serious issue.

There are some things I've been brainstorming about.

One thought I keep coming back to is the hack the block layer
is using right now.  It remembers which CPU a block I/O request
comes in on, and it makes sure the completion runs on that
cpu too.

We could remember the cpu that the last socket level operation
occurred upon, and use that as a target for packets.  This requires a
bit of work.

First we'd need some kind of pre-demux at netif_receive_skb()
time to look up the cpu target, and reference this blob from
the socket somehow, and keep it uptodate at various specific
locations (read/write/poll, whatever...).

Or we could pre-demux the real socket.  That could be exciting.

But then we come back to the cpu number changing issue.  There is a
cool way to handle this, because it seems that we can just keep
queueing to the previous cpu and it can check the socket cpu cookie.
If that changes, the old target can push the rest of it's queue to
that cpu and then update the cpu target blob.

Anyways, just some ideas.
--
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