netdev - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] udp: optimize lookup of UDP sockets to by including destination address in the hash key

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AF46C18.5030104@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:34:00 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>,
	Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@...acom.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] udp: optimize lookup of UDP sockets to by including
 destination address in the hash key

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Octavian Purdila a écrit :
> 
>> IIRC, we first saw this issue in VoIP tests with up to 16000 sockets bound on a 
>> certain port and IP addresses (each IP address is assigned to a particular 
>> interface). We need this setup in order to emulate lots of VoIP users each 
>> with a different IP address and possible a different L2 encapsulation.
> 
> Interesting case indeed, is it SIP 5060 port or RTP ports ?
> (I want to know how many messages per second you want to receive)
> 
> An rbtree with 16000 elements has 15 levels, its a lot, but OK
> for small trafic.
> 
>> Now, as a general note I should say that our usecases can seem absurd if you 
>> take them out of the network testing field :) but my _personal_ opinion is that 
>> a better integration between our code base and upstream code may benefit both 
>> upstream and us:
>>
>> - for us it gives the ability to stay close to upstream and get all of the new 
>> shiny features without painful upgrades
>>
>> - for upstream, even if most systems don't run into these scalability issues 
>> now, I see that some people are moving in that direction (see the recent PPP 
>> problems); also, stressing Linux in that regard can only make the code better 
>> - as long as the approach taken is clean and sound
>>
>> - we (or our customers) use a plethora of networking devices for testing so 
>> exposing Linux early to those devices can only help catching issues earlier
>>
>> In short: expect more absurd patches from us :) 
> 
> I might cook something too :)
> 

I tried the rbtree thing and suddenly realized it was not possible at all.

This is not possible because of all wildcards we have in UDP.

1) You can for example bind a socket s1 on address X, port p, dev eth0
2) You can bind socket s2 on adress X, port p  (same values as previous socket), and dev eth1

As bindtodevice can be called after bind() itself, we can get several sockets with same
rbtree key  (port, address), but rbtree doesnt allow duplicates.

I'll try hash based extent.
(Ie allocate an hash extent for given primary hash slot in case number of sockets
in this hash chain exceeds 10 or some threshold)

key hash would be function_of(port, address), duplicates allowed.

allocating 4096 bytes secondary hashes would divide per 1024 or 512 time of lookups, but keeping
rcu lookup might be difficult.

--
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