netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/4] udp: receive path optimizations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALx6S35HwvVBv=6=ZZMyOxe3gfXo-MR_VNL0syhn-pEWW1sxwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:13:12 -0800
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/4] udp: receive path optimizations

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 08:43 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>> Are you thinking of allowing unconnected socket to have multiple input
>> queues? Sort of an automatic and transparent SO_REUSEPORT...
>
> It all depends if the user application is using a single thread or
> multiple threads to drain the queue.
>
If they're using multiple threads hopefully there's no reason they
can't use SO_REUSEPORT. Since we should always assume DDOS is
possibility it seems like that should be a general recommendation: If
you have multiple threads listening on a port use SO_REUSEPORT.

> Since we used to grab socket lock in udp_recvmsg(), I guess nobody uses
> multiple threads to read packets from a single socket.
>
That's the hope! So the problem at hand is multiple producer CPUs and
one consumer CPU.

> So heavy users must use SO_REUSEPORT already, not sure what we would
> gain trying to go to a single socket, with the complexity of mem
> charging.
>
I think you're making a good point a the possibility that any
unconnected UDP socket could be subject to an attack, so any use of
unconnected UDP has the potential to become a "heavy user" (in fact
we've seen bring down whole networks before in production). Therefore
the single thread reader case is relevant to consider.

Tom

>
>>
>
>