netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v5 1/6] net: virtio dynamically disable/enable LRO

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:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:01:27 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, shm@...ulusnetworks.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        tgraf@...g.ch, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
        john.r.fastabend@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 1/6] net: virtio dynamically disable/enable
 LRO

On 16-12-14 05:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:04:58PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 16-12-08 01:36 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:11:11PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>> This adds support for dynamically setting the LRO feature flag. The
>>>> message to control guest features in the backend uses the
>>>> CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS msg type.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
>>>> ---

[...]

>>>>  
>>>>  static void virtnet_config_changed_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>> @@ -1815,6 +1846,12 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>>  	if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM))
>>>>  		dev->features |= NETIF_F_RXCSUM;
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) &&
>>>> +	    virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6)) {
>>>> +		dev->features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
>>>> +		dev->hw_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
>>>
>>> So the issue is I think that the virtio "LRO" isn't really
>>> LRO, it's typically just GRO forwarded to guests.
>>> So these are easily re-split along MTU boundaries,
>>> which makes it ok to forward these across bridges.
>>>
>>> It's not nice that we don't document this in the spec,
>>> but it's the reality and people rely on this.
>>>
>>> For now, how about doing a custom thing and just disable/enable
>>> it as XDP is attached/detached?
>>
>> The annoying part about doing this is ethtool will say that it is fixed
>> yet it will be changed by seemingly unrelated operation. I'm not sure I
>> like the idea to start automatically configuring the link via xdp_set.
> 
> I really don't like the idea of dropping performance
> by a factor of 3 for people bridging two virtio net
> interfaces.
> 
> So how about a simple approach for now, just disable
> XDP if GUEST_TSO is enabled?
> 
> We can discuss better approaches in next version.
> 

So the proposal is to add a check in XDP setup so that

  if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO{4|6})
	return -ENOPSUPP;

Or whatever is the most appropriate return code? Then we can
disable TSO via qemu-system with guest_tso4=off,guest_tso6=off for
XDP use cases.

Sounds like a reasonable start to me. I'll make the change should this
go through DaveMs net-next tree or do you want it on virtio tree? Either
is fine with me.

Thanks,
John