netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] driver: net: remove unnecessary skb NULL check before calling dev_kfree_skb

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:56:48 +0530 (IST)
From:	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <govindarajulu90@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <govindarajulu90@...il.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	linville@...driver.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, IvDoorn@...il.com, sbhatewara@...are.com,
	samuel@...tiz.org, chas@....nrl.navy.mil, roland@...nel.org,
	isdn@...ux-pingi.de, jcliburn@...il.com,
	"Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@...co.com>,
	"Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith@...co.com>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	shahed.shaikh@...gic.com, joe@...ches.com, apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] driver: net: remove unnecessary skb NULL
 check before calling dev_kfree_skb_irq

Hi Dave

Did you have a chance to look at this? Let me know how you want me to
fix this.

//govind

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Govindarajulu Varadarajan wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Govindarajulu Varadarajan <govindarajulu90@...il.com>
>> Date: Sat,  2 Nov 2013 19:17:43 +0530
>> 
>>> @@ -1030,10 +1030,8 @@ static void ni65_xmit_intr(struct net_device 
>>> *dev,int csr0)
>>>  		}
>>>
>>>  #ifdef XMT_VIA_SKB
>>> -		if(p->tmd_skb[p->tmdlast]) {
>>> -			 dev_kfree_skb_irq(p->tmd_skb[p->tmdlast]);
>>> -			 p->tmd_skb[p->tmdlast] = NULL;
>>> -		}
>>> +		 dev_kfree_skb_irq(p->tmd_skb[p->tmdlast]);
>>> +		 p->tmd_skb[p->tmdlast] = NULL;
>>>  #endif
>> 
>> I absolutely disagree with this kind of change.
>> 
>> There is a non-trivial cost for NULL'ing out that array entry
>> unconditionally.  It's a dirtied cache line and this is in the
>> fast path of TX SKB reclaim of this driver.
>> 
>> You've made several changes of this kind.
>> 
>> And it sort-of shows that the places that do check for NULL,
>> are getting something in return for that test, namely avoidance
>> of an unnecessary cpu store in the fast path of the driver.
>> 
>
> True, in case of dev_kfree_skb_irq. If you look at patch 06-12, at many
> places we do
>
> if (s->skb) {
> 	dev_kfree_skb_any(s->skb);
> 	s->skb = NULL)
> }
>
> This is in fast path. If the code is not running in hardirq,
> dev_kfree_skb_any calls dev_kfree_skb. Which again check if skb is NULL.
> So we are checking if skb is null twice. That is what this patch is
> trying to fix. (sorry I should have mentioned this in cover letter).
>
> I am not sure if you have read my previous mail. I am pasting it below.
>
>>> On Sun, 3 Nov 2013, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote: Thanks for this work, I'm a 
>>> little concerned that there is a
>>> non-trivial overhead to this patch.
>>> 
>>> when doing (for example in the Intel drivers): if (s->skb) {
>>>      dev_kfree_skb(s->skb);
>>>      s->skb = NULL; }
>>> 
>> 
>> In current code, dev_kfree_skb is NULL safe. Which means skb is
>> checked for NULL inside dev_kfree_skb. dev_kfree_skb_any is also NULL safe
>> when the code is running in non-hardirq.
>> 
>> Lets consider two cases
>> 
>> 1. skb is not NULL:
>>      * Without my patch:
>>           In the code above, we check for skb!=NULL twice. (once
>>           before calling dev_kfree_skb, once by dev_kfree_skb). And
>>           then we do assignment.
>>       * With this patch:
>>           we check for skb!=NULL once, And then we do assignment.
>>
>>       To fix the twice NULL check, we either have to remove the check
>>       which is inside dev_kfree_skb (1). Or do whats done in this
>>       patch.
>>
>>       (1) is not an option because a lot of kernel code already
>>       assumes that dev_kfree_skb is NULL safe.
>> 
>> 2. skb is NULL:
>>       * Without this patch:
>>           One if statement is executed.
>>       * With this patch:
>>           One if statement and one assignment is executed.
>> 
>> From my observation most of the dev_kfree_skb calls are from
>> e1000_unmap_and_free_tx_resource, e1000_put_txbuf,
>> atl1_clean_tx_ring, alx_free_txbuf etc. in clean up functions.
>> 
>> Is is quite unlikely thats skb is NULL. So it comes down to one extra
>> if-branching statement or one extra assignment. I would prefer extra
>> assignment to branching statement. In my opinion extra assignment is
>> very little price we pay.
>> 
>> //govind
>
> Another way to solve the double NULL check is to define a new function
> something like this
>
> dev_kfree_skb_NULL(struct sk_buff **skb)
> {
> 	if(*skb) {
> 		free_skb(*skb);
> 		*skb=NULL;
> 	}
> }
>
> and use this if you want to free a skb and make it NULL.
> Is this approach better?
>
> //govind
>
>
--
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