netdev - Re: SKB paged fragment lifecycle on receive

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: <20110626102543.GA4961@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:25:44 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, mashirle@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: SKB paged fragment lifecycle on receive

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> In this mode guest data pages ("foreign pages") were mapped into the
> backend domain (using Xen grant-table functionality) and placed into the
> skb's paged frag list (skb_shinfo(skb)->frags, I hope I am using the
> right term). Once the page is finished with netback unmaps it in order
> to return it to the guest (we really want to avoid returning such pages
> to the general allocation pool!).

Are the pages writeable by the source guest while netback processes
them?  If yes, firewalling becomes unreliable as the packet can be
modified after it's checked, right?
Also, for guest to guest communication, do you wait for
the destination to stop looking at the packet in order
to return it to the source? If yes, can source guest
networking be disrupted by a slow destination?


> Jeremy Fitzhardinge and I subsequently
> looked at the possibility of a no-clone skb flag (i.e. always forcing a
> copy instead of a clone)

I think this is the approach that the patchset
'macvtap/vhost TX zero-copy support' takes.

> but IIRC honouring it universally turned into a
> very twisty maze with a number of nasty corner cases etc.

Any examples? Are they covered by the patchset above?

> FWIW I proposed a session on the subject for LPC this year.
We also plan to discuss this on kvm forum 2011
(colocated with linuxcon 2011).
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM_Forum_2011

-- 
MST
--
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