netdev - Re: [PATCH] xen-netfront: transmit fully GSO-sized packets

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: <20150330134639.GF25911@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:46:39 +0100
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Jonathan Davies <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-netfront: transmit fully GSO-sized packets

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:08:58PM +0000, Jonathan Davies wrote:
> 
> On 26/03/15 12:05, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 11:13 +0000, Jonathan Davies wrote:
> >>xen-netfront limits transmitted skbs to be at most 44 segments in size. However,
> >>GSO permits up to 65536 bytes, which means a maximum of 45 segments of 1448
> >>bytes each. This slight reduction in the size of packets means a slight loss in
> >>efficiency.
> >>
> >>Since c/s 9ecd1a75d, xen-netfront sets gso_max_size to
> >>     XEN_NETIF_MAX_TX_SIZE - MAX_TCP_HEADER,
> >>where XEN_NETIF_MAX_TX_SIZE is 65535 bytes.
> >>
> >>The calculation used by tcp_tso_autosize (and also tcp_xmit_size_goal since c/s
> >>6c09fa09d) in determining when to split an skb into two is
> >>     sk->sk_gso_max_size - 1 - MAX_TCP_HEADER.
> >>
> >>So the maximum permitted size of an skb is calculated to be
> >>     (XEN_NETIF_MAX_TX_SIZE - MAX_TCP_HEADER) - 1 - MAX_TCP_HEADER.
> >>
> >>Intuitively, this looks like the wrong formula -- we don't need two TCP headers.
> >>Instead, there is no need to deviate from the default gso_max_size of 65536 as
> >>this already accommodates the size of the header.
> >>
> >>Currently, the largest skb transmitted by netfront is 63712 bytes (44 segments
> >>of 1448 bytes each), as observed via tcpdump. This patch makes netfront send
> >>skbs of up to 65160 bytes (45 segments of 1448 bytes each).
> >>
> >>Fixes: 9ecd1a75d977 ("xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for max TCP header")
> >>Signed-off-by: Jonathan Davies <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/net/xen-netfront.c | 2 --
> >>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
> >>index e9b960f..fb6e978 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netfront.c
> >>@@ -1279,8 +1279,6 @@ static struct net_device *xennet_create_dev(struct xenbus_device *dev)
> >>  	netdev->ethtool_ops = &xennet_ethtool_ops;
> >>  	SET_NETDEV_DEV(netdev, &dev->dev);
> >>
> >>-	netif_set_gso_max_size(netdev, XEN_NETIF_MAX_TX_SIZE - MAX_TCP_HEADER);
> >>-
> >>  	np->netdev = netdev;
> >>
> >>  	netif_carrier_off(netdev);
> >
> >Hmm, this partially reverts commit
> >9ecd1a75d977e2e8c48139c7d3efed183f898d94
> >
> >
> >
> >Why xennet_change_mtu() is not changed by your patch ?
> 
> I think you are right: the mtu calculation suffers from the same problem. I
> believe the value of mtu relates to the size of the whole packet, including
> the header (which is why the value of dev->mtu is normally 1500 rather than
> 1448).
> 
> Wei, as the author of commit 9ecd1a75d977 ("xen-netfront: reduce
> gso_max_size to account for max TCP header"), do you agree that the max mtu
> formula should not need to subtract MAX_TCP_HEADER?
> 

IIRC at the time I wrote that patch I needed to subtract MAX_TCP_HEADER
otherwise netfront would generate oversized packets then get marked as
malicious by backend.

I think your reasoning is straightforward. Probably other core driver
changes have somehow mitigated the issues I saw.

Presuming you tested this change and saw no problems, I'm of course
happy with making netfront more efficient. :-)

Wei.

> Regards,
> Jonathan
--
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