netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: SO_INCOMING

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: <1444339069.27760.43.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:17:49 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: SO_INCOMING_CPU setsockopt() support

On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 13:53 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:

> If the incoming CPU is set for a connected UDP via
> sk_incoming_cpu_update, wouldn't this check subsequently _only_ allow
> packets for that socket to come from the same CPU?
> 

Hmm, I thought the SO_REUSEPORT path would be taken only for non
connected UDP sockets (like TCP listeners.).

But you might be right !

> Also, the check seems a little austere. Why not do something like:
> 
>                if (sk->sk_incoming_cpu != -1) {
>                        if (sk->sk_incoming_cpu != raw_smp_processor_id())
>                             score += 4;
>                }
> 
> My worry is that the packet steering configuration may change without
> the application's knowledge, so it's possible packets may come in on
> CPUs that the are unexpected to the application and then they would be
> dropped without matching a socket. I suppose that this could work with
> the original patch if a socket is bound to every CPU or there is at
> least one listener socket that is not bound to any CPU.

This is what I initially wrote, then I attempted a short cut, (abort
full list scan), then forgot to re-instate the first try, when I decided
to let this for future patch (Ying patch)

if (sk->sk_incoming_cpu == raw_smp_processor_id())
    score++;

(Note we do not even have to test for sk_incoming_cpu == -1 in this
variant)

I'll include this in v2.

Thanks.


--
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