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  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:	Wed, 18 May 2016 18:23:48 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <>,,,,, Steven Rostedt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: introduce tx skb ring

On 2016年05月18日 16:13, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2016 15:51:48 +0800
> Jason Wang <> wrote:
>> On 2016年05月16日 11:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2016-05-16 at 09:17 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less
>>>> efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer
>>>> and consumer.
>>> ...
>>>>    	struct tun_struct *detached;
>>>> +	/* reader lock */
>>>> +	spinlock_t rlock;
>>>> +	unsigned long tail;
>>>> +	struct tun_desc tx_descs[TUN_RING_SIZE];
>>>> +	/* writer lock */
>>>> +	spinlock_t wlock;
>>>> +	unsigned long head;
>>>>    };
>>> Ok, we had these kind of ideas floating around for many other cases,
>>> like qdisc, UDP or af_packet sockets...
>>> I believe we should have a common set of helpers, not hidden in
>>> drivers/net/tun.c but in net/core/skb_ring.c or something, with more
>>> flexibility (like the number of slots)
>> Yes, this sounds good.
> I agree. It is sad to see everybody is implementing the same thing,
> open coding an array/circular based ring buffer.  This kind of code is
> hard to maintain and get right with barriers etc.  We can achieve the
> same performance with a generic implementation, by inlining the help
> function calls.
> I implemented an array based Lock-Free/cmpxchg based queue, that you
> could be inspired by, see:

This looks really interesting, thanks.

> The main idea behind my implementation is bulking, to amortize the
> locked cmpxchg operation. You might not need it now, but I expect we
> need it in the future.

Right, we need change APIs which can read or write multiple buffers at 
one time for tun (and for others). I agree this will be a good 
optimization in the future.

> You cannot use my alf_queue directly as your "struct tun_desc" is
> larger than one-pointer (which the alf_queue works with).  But it
> should be possible to extend to handle larger "objects".

Yes, and for more generic usage, maybe one more void * is sufficient.

> Maybe Steven Rostedt have an even better ring queue implementation
> already avail in the kernel?

You mean ring buffer in tracing? Not sure, but it looks rather complex 
at first glance.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists