netdev - Re: [PATCH] xen-netback: count number required slots for an skb more carefully

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: <20130904133544.GQ14104@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:35:45 +0100
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <msw@...zon.com>, <annie.li@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-netback: count number required slots for an skb more
 carefully

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 01:41:25PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 12:48 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 03/09/13 22:53, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 06:29:50PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
> > >>
> > >> When a VM is providing an iSCSI target and the LUN is used by the
> > >> backend domain, the generated skbs for direct I/O writes to the disk
> > >> have large, multi-page skb->data but no frags.
> > >>
> > >> With some lengths and starting offsets, xen_netbk_count_skb_slots()
> > >> would be one short because the simple calculation of
> > >> DIV_ROUND_UP(skb_headlen(), PAGE_SIZE) was not accounting for the
> > >> decisions made by start_new_rx_buffer() which does not guarantee
> > >> responses are fully packed.
> > >>
> > >> For example, a skb with length < 2 pages but which spans 3 pages would
> > >> be counted as requiring 2 slots but would actually use 3 slots.
> > >>
> > >> skb->data:
> > >>
> > >>     |        1111|222222222222|3333        |
> > >>
> > >> Fully packed, this would need 2 slots:
> > >>
> > >>     |111122222222|22223333    |
> > >>
> > >> But because the 2nd page wholy fits into a slot it is not split across
> > >> slots and goes into a slot of its own:
> > >>
> > >>     |1111        |222222222222|3333        |
> > >>
> > >> Miscounting the number of slots means netback may push more responses
> > >> than the number of available requests.  This will cause the frontend
> > >> to get very confused and report "Too many frags/slots".  The frontend
> > >> never recovers and will eventually BUG.
> > >>
> > >> Fix this by counting the number of required slots more carefully.  In
> > >> xen_netbk_count_skb_slots(), more closely follow the algorithm used by
> > >> xen_netbk_gop_skb() by introducing xen_netbk_count_frag_slots() which
> > >> is the dry-run equivalent of netbk_gop_frag_copy().
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Phew! So this is backend miscounting bug. I thought it was a frontend
> > > bug so it didn't ring a bell when we had our face-to-face discussion,
> > > sorry. :-(
> > > 
> > > This bug was discussed back in July among Annie, Matt, Ian and I. We
> > > finally agreed to take Matt's solution. Matt agreed to post final
> > > version within a week but obviously he's too busy to do so. I was away
> > > so I didn't follow closely. Eventually it fell through the crack. :-(
> > 
> > I think I prefer fixing the counting for backporting to stable kernels.
> 
> That's a good argument. I think we should take this patch, or something
> very like it, now and then rebase the more complex thing on top.
> 

It's not as complex as you first see it. David's and Xi's approaches are
different routes to the same destination.

David's approach makes counting fits what netbk_gop_frag_copy actually
does, while Xi's approach is the other way around -- makes
netbk_gop_frag_copy fits what counting returns.

As long as we have them agreed with each other we're fine.

> >  Xi's approach of packing the ring differently is a change in frontend
> > visible behaviour and seems more risky. e.g., possible performance
> > impact so I would like to see some performance analysis of that approach.
> 
> Yes.

The performance impact is more concerning. I have a short analysis in
the reply to David's email.

Wei.
--
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