netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: allow drivers to tweak TSQ logic

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: <1511890429.16595.20.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:33:49 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        Kir Kolyshkin <kir@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: allow drivers to tweak TSQ logic

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 14:10 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2017-11-12 00:54, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > I had many reports that TSQ logic breaks wifi aggregation.
> > 
> > Current logic is to allow up to 1 ms of bytes to be queued into
> > qdisc
> > and drivers queues.
> > 
> > But Wifi aggregation needs a bigger budget to allow bigger rates to
> > be discovered by various TCP Congestion Controls algorithms.
> > 
> > This patch adds an extra socket field, allowing wifi drivers to
> > select
> > another log scale to derive TCP Small Queue credit from current
> > pacing
> > rate.
> > 
> > Initial value is 10, meaning that this patch does not change
> > current
> > behavior.
> > 
> > We expect wifi drivers to set this field to smaller values (tests
> > have
> > been done with values from 6 to 9)
> > 
> > They would have to use following template :
> > 
> > if (skb->sk && skb->sk->sk_pacing_shift != MY_PACING_SHIFT)
> >      skb->sk->sk_pacing_shift = MY_PACING_SHIFT;
> 
> I did some experiments with this approach (with your patch backported
> to
> a 4.9 kernel), and I got some crashes.
> After looking at the crashes and code some more, it seems that this
> would need some extra checks to ensure that skb->sk is a full struct
> sock, instead of just a struct request_sock.
> Should this be done by checking for skb->sk->sk_state ==
> TCP_ESTABLISHED? It seems to me that this might introduce some extra
> overhead.
> 
Hi Felix.

Answer is in the question, the pseudo code in the changelog was not
100% correct.

I will add following helper to net-next I guess :

void sk_pacing_shift_update(struct sock *sk, int val)
{
	if (!sk || !sk_fullsock(sk) || sk->sk_pacing_shift == val)
		return;
	sk->sk_pacing_shift = val;
}


Then you might use it like that :

	sk_pacing_shift_update(skb->sk, 7);

Thanks.