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  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, 30 Sep 2016 13:49:56 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Eric Nelson' <eric@...int.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "fugang.duan@....com" <fugang.duan@....com>,
        "otavio@...ystems.com.br" <otavio@...ystems.com.br>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "troy.kisky@...ndarydevices.com" <troy.kisky@...ndarydevices.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] net: fec: align IP header in hardware

From: Eric Nelson
> Sent: 30 September 2016 14:27
> Thanks for the feedback David,
> 
> On 09/29/2016 04:07 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Eric Nelson
> >> Sent: 28 September 2016 18:15
> >> On 09/28/2016 09:42 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >>> From: Eric Nelson
> >>>> Sent: 26 September 2016 19:40
> >>>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/26/2016 02:26 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >>>>> From: Eric Nelson
> >>>>>> Sent: 24 September 2016 15:42
> >>>>>> The FEC receive accelerator (RACC) supports shifting the data payload of
> >>>>>> received packets by 16-bits, which aligns the payload (IP header) on a
> >>>>>> 4-byte boundary, which is, if not required, at least strongly suggested
> >>>>>> by the Linux networking layer.
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> +		/* align IP header */
> >>>>>> +		val |= FEC_RACC_SHIFT16;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't help feeling that there needs to be corresponding
> >>>>> changes to increase the buffer size by 2 (maybe for large mtu)
> >>>>> and to discard two bytes from the frame length.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the normal case, the fec driver over-allocates all receive packets to
> >>>> be of size FEC_ENET_RX_FRSIZE (2048) minus the value of rx_align,
> >>>> which is either 0x0f (ARM) or 0x03 (PPC).
> >>>>
> >>>> If the frame length is less than rx_copybreak (typically 256), then
> >>>> the frame length from the receive buffer descriptor is used to
> >>>> control the allocation size for a copied buffer, and this will include
> >>>> the two bytes of padding if RACC_SHIFT16 is set.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If probably ought to be predicated on NET_IP_ALIGN as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Can you elaborate?
> >>>
> >>> From reading this it seems that the effect of FEC_RACC_SHIFT16 is to
> >>> add two bytes of 'junk' to the start of every receive frame.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's right. Two bytes of junk between the MAC header and the
> >> IP header.
> >>
> >>> In the 'copybreak' case the new skb would need to be 2 bytes shorter
> >>> than the length reported by the hardware, and the data copied from
> >>> 2 bytes into the dma buffer.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As it stands, the skb allocated by the copybreak routine will include
> >> the two bytes of padding, and the call to skb_pull_inline will ignore
> >> them.
> >
> > Ok, I didn't see that call being added by this patch.
> >
> >>> The extra 2 bytes also mean the that maximum mtu that can be received
> >>> into a buffer is two bytes less.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Right, but I think the max is already high enough that this isn't a
> >> problem.
> >>
> >>> If someone sets the mtu to (say) 9k for jumbo frames this might matter.
> >>> Even with fixed 2048 byte buffers it reduces the maximum value the mtu
> >>> can be set to by 2.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, the fec driver doesn't support jumbo frames, and
> >> the max frame length is currently hard-coded at PKT_MAXBUF_SIZE (1522).
> >>
> >> This is well within the 2048-byte allocation, even with optional headers
> >> for VLAN etc.
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > That (probably) means all the skb the driver allocates are actually 4k.
> > It would be much better to reduce the size so that the entire skb
> > (with packet buffer) is less than 2k.
> >
> 
> That seems worthwhile, but un-related to this patch.

Indeed.

> It appears to me that the received packets could be allocated as
> 
> PKT_MAXBUF_SIZE+fep->rx_align+NET_IP_ALIGN
> 
> (+2 if FEC_RACC_SHIFT16 is used)

No.
The packet buffers need to be allocated NET_IP_ALIGN + PKT_MAXBUF_SIZE
byte long and (I assume) aligned on a fep->rx_align byte boundary.

If NET_IP_ALIGN is set (to 2) then FEC_RACC_SHIFT16 must also me set
so that the ethernet frame itself is 4n+2 aligned.

> >>> Now if NET_IP_ALIGN is zero then it is fine for the rx frame to start
> >>> on a 4n boundary, and the skb are likely to be allocated that way.
> >>> In this case you don't want to extra two bytes of 'junk'.
> >>>
> >> NET_IP_ALIGN is defaulting to 2 by the conditional in skbuff.h
> >
> > Even though it is always currently set is isn't really ideal to have
> > a driver that breaks if it isn't set.
> > This could easily happen at some point in the future if the ethernet
> > logic is put with a different cpu.
> >
> 
> After multiple reads, I'm confused about the meaning of NET_IP_ALIGN
> and how it should be used.
> 
> From Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt, I take it that this
> should be configured on a per-architecture basis, and it seems to be
> set to zero on both PPC and x86.
> 
> I wonder if this is proper though. It seems that its' use might depend
> on the I/O subsystem(s) in use as much as the architecture.
...

If the cpu cannot do misaligned memory cycles then NET_IP_ALIGN must be 2
and all receive frames must be aligned like that.

If the cpu can do misaligned memory cycles then the alignment of receive
ethernet frames doesn't matter that much.
NET_IP_ALIGN is likely to be set to zero because the cost of the cpu
doing misaligned transfers it likely to be a lot less than that of
un-optimised dma accesses to misaligned memory [1] [2].

If NET_IP_ALIGN is zero then I believe that ethernet drivers are
allowed to build skb that have the frame on a 4n+2 alignment.
This is probably sensible if the hardware can write the two bytes.
(DM might correct me there.)

	David

[1] The original sparc sbus 'DMA' part did multiple 16bit transfers instead
  of a burst of 32bit transfers. This meant the buffer had to be misaligned
  and a software copy done to align the frames. Fixed in the DMA+ part.

[2] PCIe writes are likely to be much faster if they contain entire cache
  lines of data.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists