netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] loopback: sctp: add NETIF_F_SCTP

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:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:31:47 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
CC:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] loopback: sctp: add NETIF_F_SCTP_CSUM to device
 features

On 02/24/2014 11:17 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann
>> Drivers are allowed to set NETIF_F_SCTP_CSUM if they have
>> hardware crc32c checksumming support for the SCTP protocol.
>> Currently, NETIF_F_SCTP_CSUM flag is available in igb,
>> ixgbe, i40e/i40evf drivers and for vlan devices.
>>
>> If we don't have NETIF_F_SCTP_CSUM then crc32c is done
>> through CPU instructions, invoked from crypto layer, or
>> if not available as slow-path fallback in software.
>>
>> Currently, loopback device propagates checksum offloading
>> feature flags in dev->features, but is missing SCTP checksum
>> offloading. Therefore, account for NETIF_F_SCTP_CSUM as
>> well.
>>
>> Before patch:
>>
>> ./netperf_sctp -H 192.168.0.100 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY
>> SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.0.100 () port 0 AF_INET
>> Recv   Send    Send
>> Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
>> Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
>> bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 4194304 4194304   4096    10.00    4683.50
>>
>> After patch:
> ...
>> 4194304 4194304   4096    10.00    15348.26
>
> That seems a much larger increase than you'd expect from removing
> a software CRC of the data chunks.
> Are you sure that some other difference in the data flows wasn't
> also triggered.

Yes, I run this multiple times with similar results and I double-checked
it with perf. Current code triggers crc32c implementation in software
fallback on my machine which is very expensive.

> I'm also not sure that 4096 is a representative message size for SCTP.

I used netperf default in this case.
--
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