netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

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:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:26:59 -0200
From:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:	Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@...chi.franken.de>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>,
	"alexander.duyck@...il.com" <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	"alexei.starovoitov@...il.com" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	"borkmann@...earbox.net" <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
	"marek@...udflare.com" <marek@...udflare.com>,
	"hannes@...essinduktion.org" <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	"fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"john.r.fastabend@...el.com" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp: add GSO support

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:57:46AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > On 29 Jan 2016, at 02:18, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:05AM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >>>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:51, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> >>>>>> Sent: 27 January 2016 17:07
> >>>>>> This patchset is merely a RFC for the moment. There are some
> >>>>>> controversial points that I'd like to discuss before actually proposing
> >>>>>> the patches.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> You also need to look at how a 'user' can actually get SCTP to
> >>>>> merge data chunks in the first place.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> With Nagle disabled (and it probably has to be since the data flow
> >>>>> is unlikely to be 'command-response' or 'unidirectional bulk')
> >>>>> it is currently almost impossible to get more than one chunk
> >>>>> into an ethernet frame.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Support for MSG_MORE would help.
> >>>> What about adding support for the explicit EOR mode as specified in
> >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.26
> >>> 
> >>> Seizing the moment to clarify my understanding on that. :)
> >>> Such multiple calls to send system calls will result in a single data
> >>> chunk. Is that so? That's what I get from that text and also from this
> >> No. It results in a single user message. This means you can send
> >> a user message larger than the send buffer size. How the user message
> >> is fragmented in DATA chunks is transparent to the upper layer.
> >> 
> >> Does this make things clearer?
> > 
> > I think so, yes. So it allows delaying setting the Ending fragment bit
> > until the application set SCTP_EOR. All the rest before this stays as
> > before: first send() will generate a chunk with Beginning bit set and
> > may generate some other middle-fragments (no B nor E bit set) if
> > necessary, second to N-1 call to send will generate only middle
> > fragments, while the last send, with SCTP_EOF, will then set the Ending
> > fragment in the last one. Right?
> Yes. But there are no restrictions on the user data provided in send()
> calls and DATA chunks. So you can
> send(100000 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> resulting in one DATA chunk with the B bit, several with no B and no E bit.
> send(100000 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> resulting in several chunks with no B and no E bit.
> send(100000 byte, SCTP_EOR)
> resulting in several chunks with no B and no E bit and one (the last) chunk
> with the E bit.
> 
> On the other hand you can do
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> resulting in a single DATA chunk with the E bit set.
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> send(1 byte, no SCTP_EOR)
> All resulting in a single DATA chunk with 5 bytes user data and no B or E bit.
> (For example if Nagle is enabled and only after the last send call the SACK arrives).
> send(1 byte, SCTP_EOR)
> results in a single DATA chunk with the E bist set.

Cool, thanks Michael. It will be quite fun to mix this with MSG_MORE
logic, I think :)

Best regards,
Marcelo