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: <5195a7d9-7b7d-044b-0031-6fa13c0fe48a@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:27:48 -0700
From:   Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@...cle.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso



On 04/18/2018 11:12 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:28 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:31:03 -0400
>>
>>> However, I share Sridhar's concerns about the very fundamental change
>>> to UDP message boundary semantics here.  There is actually no such thing
>>> as a "segment" in udp, so in general this feature makes me a little
>>> uneasy.  Well behaved udp applications should already be sending mtu
>>> sized datagrams. And the not-so-well-behaved ones are probably relying
>>> on IP fragmentation/reassembly to take care of datagram boundary semantics
>>> for them?
>>>
>>> As Sridhar points out, the feature is not really "negotiated" - one side
>>> unilaterally sets the option. If the receiver is a classic/POSIX UDP
>>> implementation, it will have no way of knowing that message boundaries
>>> have been re-adjusted at the sender.
>>
>> There are no "semantics".
>>
>> What ends up on the wire is the same before the kernel/app changes as
>> afterwards.
>>
>> The only difference is that instead of the application doing N - 1
>> sendmsg() calls with mtu sized writes, it's giving everything all at
>> once and asking the kernel to segment.
>>
>> It even gives the application control over the size of the packets,
>> which I think is completely prudent in this situation.
> 
> My only concern with the patch set is verifying what mitigations are
> in case so that we aren't trying to set an MSS size that results in a
> frame larger than MTU. I'm still digging through the code and trying
> to grok it, but I figured I might just put the question out there to
> may my reviewing easier.
> 
> Also any plans for HW offload support for this? I vaguely recall that
> the igb and ixgbe parts had support for something like this in
> hardware. I would have to double check to see what exactly is
> supported.

Alex,

If by HW support you meant UFO (UDP Fragmentation Offload), then I have
dig into that last year using ixgbe. And I found that Intel 10G HW does
break large UDP packets into MTU size however it does not generate
*true* IP fragments. Instead, when large (> MTU) size UDP packet is
given to NIC, HW generates unique UDP packets with distinct IP
fragments. This makes it impossible for receiving station to reassemble
them into one UDP packet.

I am not sure about igb!

-Tushar


> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Alex
>