netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net-tun: restructure tun_do_read for better sleep/wakeup efficiency

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: <537AFC51.30103@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 14:55:13 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@....qualcomm.com>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net-tun: restructure tun_do_read for better sleep/wakeup
 efficiency

On 05/20/2014 02:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:03:34PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/20/2014 01:11 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:44 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 05/19/2014 10:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> About the sk_data_ready() and wake_up_all(), you missed the whole part
>>>>> of the patch I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check how sock_def_readable() does everything properly and efficiently,
>>>>> including the async part.
>>>> But this changes (sk_data_ready()) has nothing related to switching to
>>>> use __skb_recv_datagram()
>>>>
>>> This is totally related.
>>>
>>> I think you did not yet understood this patch
>> Sorry for being unclear, but I think you misunderstand my meaning.
>>> Compare wake_up_all() and sk_data_ready() speeds, you'll be surprised.
>>>
>>> You should ask to yourself : Why do we use wq_has_sleeper() in
>>> networking stacks ?
>> See my first reply, I don't have objection that uses sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_net_xmit(). My only concern is using sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_detach_all():
>>
>> - It was only called during tun destroying, so I believe we don't care
>> about the performance in this condition.
>> - sk_data_ready() was usually called when there's something new to be
>> processed which is not case in tun_detach_all()
> OK so what does userspace do to notice change in behaviour?
> I don't ask that you write a test but can you show us in
> pseudo-code?
>
>

Not currently but possible in the future.
>> - Not sure it was a problem but sock_def_readable() will not wake up
>> uninterruptible task during tun destroying.
> But task_uninterruptible here would really mean some in-kernel caller
> hooking into this function? 

Yes.
> is there a way to create this from
> userspace? If not we don't care.
 
I think not.
>> - If we make sock_fasync() works for tun in the future, it may send
>> SIGIO to user process during tun destroying which is not expected.
>>
>> Thanks
> I don't get this last comment. The patch does not touch fasync paths
> at all. How can it break them?

sock_def_readable() will call sk_wake_async() which may send SIGIO to
userspace if SOCK_FASYNC were set for socket. But currently tun has its
own implementation of fasync, so this can not happen. But if we want to
switch to use sock_fasync() for tun in the future, this issue may appear.


--
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