netdev - Re: [PATCH V5 2/6 net-next] netdevice.h: Add zero-copy flag in netdevice

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: <1306363780.26270.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 25 May 2011 15:49:40 -0700
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/6 net-next] netdevice.h: Add zero-copy flag in
 netdevice

On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 02:41 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> So the requirements are
> - data must be released in a timely fashion (e.g. unlike virtio-net
>   tun or bridge)
The current patch doesn't enable tun zero-copy. tun will copy data It's
not an issue now. We can disallow macvtap attach to bridge when
zero-copy is enabled.

> - SG support
> - HIGHDMA support (on arches where this makes sense)

This can be checked by device flags.

> - no filtering based on data (data is mapped in guest)

> - on fast path no calls to skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy,
>   pskb_expand_head as these are slow

Any calls to skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy, pskb_expand_head will do a
copy. The performance should be the same as none zero-copy case before.
I have done/tested the patch V6, will send it out for review tomorrow.

I am looking at where there are some cases, skb remains the same for
filtering.

> First 2 requirements are a must, all other requirements
> are just dependencies to make sure zero copy will be faster
> than non zero copy.
> Using a new feature bit is probably the simplest approach to
> this. macvtap on top of most physical NICs most likely works
> correctly so it seems a bit more work than it needs to be,
> but it's also the safest one I think ... 

For "macvtap/vhost zero-copy" we can use SG & HIGHDMA to enable it, it
looks safe to me once patching skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy,
pskb_expand_head.

To extend zero-copy in other usages, we can have a new feature bit
later.

Is that reasonable?

Thanks
Shirley




--
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