netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

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: <74f0b490-de65-f05a-6332-6deaeb0fac2a@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:25:14 -0700
From:   "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso


On 4/17/2018 2:07 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Sowmini Varadhan
> <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com> wrote:
>> On (04/17/18 16:23), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> Assuming IPv4 with an MTU of 1500 and the maximum segment
>>> size of 1472, the receiver will see three datagrams with MSS of
>>> 1472B, 528B and 512B.
>> so the recvmsg will also pass up 1472, 526, 512, right?
> That's right.
>
>> If yes, how will the recvmsg differentiate between the case
>> (2000 byte message followed by 512 byte message) and
>> (1472 byte message, 526 byte message, then 512 byte message),
>> in other words, how are UDP message boundary semantics preserved?
> They aren't. This is purely an optimization to amortize the cost of
> repeated tx stack traversal. Unlike UFO, which would preserve the
> boundaries of the original larger than MTU datagram.

Doesn't this break UDP applications that expect message boundary
preservation semantics? Is it possible to negotiate this feature?

>
> A prime use case is bulk transfer of data. Think video streaming
> with QUIC. It must send MTU sized or smaller packets, but has
> no application-layer requirement to reconstruct large packets on
> the peer.
>
> That said, for negotiated flows an inverse GRO feature could
> conceivably be implemented to reduce rx stack traversal, too.
> Though due to interleaving of packets on the wire, it aggregation
> would be best effort, similar to TCP TSO and GRO using the
> PSH bit as packetization signal.