netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] Introducing AF

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]

Message-ID: <CAJ+HfNgeJXUgdCqzA7OU8RwQxRb7optZyhTApobHKezUDoSf9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:09:04 +0100
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@...csson.com, ravineet.singh@...csson.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@...cle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
        "Rosen, Rami" <rami.rosen@...el.com>,
        "Shaw, Jeffrey B" <jeffrey.b.shaw@...el.com>,
        "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@...el.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] Introducing AF_PACKET V4 support

2017-11-16 4:35 GMT+01:00 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/17 4:20 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
>>>>>>>   in a separate patchset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all sounds good to me except above bit.
>>>>>> I don't remember people suggesting to split it this way.
>>>>>> What's the value of it without tx?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely need Tx for our use-cases! I'll rephrase, so the
>>>>> idea was making the initial patch set without Tx *driver*
>>>>> specific code, e.g. use ndo_xdp_xmit/flush at a later point.
>>>>>
>>>>> So AF_ZEROCOPY, the socket parts, would have Tx support.
>>>>>
>>>>> @John Did I recall that correctly?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that is what I said. However, on second thought, without the
>>>> driver tx half I guess tx will be significantly slower.
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea was that existing packet rings already send without
>>> copying, so the benefit from device driver changes is not obvious.
>>>
>>> I would leave them out for now and evaluate before possibly
>>> sending a separate patchset.
>>
>>
>> are you suggesting to use new af_zerocopy for rx and old
>> af_packet for tx ? imo that's too cumbersome to use.
>> New interface has to be symmetrical from the start.
>
> No, that tx can be implemented without device driver
> changes. At least initially.
>
> Unlike rx, tx does not need driver support to implement
> copy avoidance, as pf_packet tx_ring already has this.
>
> Having to go through ndo_start_xmit does introduce other
> overhead, notably skb alloc. Perhaps ndo_xdp_xmit is a
> better choice (but I'm not very familiar with that).
>
> If some cost is inherent to a device-independent solution
> and needs driver support to avoid it, then that can be added
> in a follow-on patchset. But this one is large already without
> the i40e tx patch.

Ideally, it would be best not having to introduce yet another xmit
ndo. I believe ndo_xdp_xmit/ndo_xdp_flush would be the best fit, but
we need to extend it with a destructor callback and potentially some
kind of DMA trait. Why DMA? For zerocopy, we know the working set of
packet buffers, so they are DMA mapped up front, whereas ndo_xdp_xmit
does yet another DMA mapping. Paying for the DMA mapping in the
fast-path is something we'd like to avoid.