netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/15] xsk: add user memory registration support sockopt

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+HfNhbNeBfiMP+dK0ZGU0dfYrkWpo5jOAidUoUnkxRMBb0xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 22:15:18 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@...csson.com,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/15] xsk: add user memory registration support sockopt

2018-04-23 22:11 GMT+02:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:00:15PM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> 2018-04-23 18:18 GMT+02:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> +static void xdp_umem_unpin_pages(struct xdp_umem *umem)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     unsigned int i;
>> >> +
>> >> +     if (umem->pgs) {
>> >> +             for (i = 0; i < umem->npgs; i++)
>> >
>> > Since you pin them with FOLL_WRITE, I assume these pages
>> > are written to.
>> > Don't you need set_page_dirty_lock here?
>> >
>>
>> Hmm, I actually *removed* it from the RFC V2, but after doing some
>> homework, I think you're right. Thanks for pointing this out!
>>
>> Thinking more about this; This function is called from sk_destruct,
>> and in the Tx case the sk_destruct can be called from interrupt
>> context, where set_page_dirty_lock cannot be called.
>>
>> Are there any preferred ways of solving this? Scheduling the whole
>> xsk_destruct call to a workqueue is one way (I think). Any
>> cleaner/better way?
>>
>> [...]
>
> Defer unpinning pages until the next tx call?
>

If the sock is released, there wont be another tx call. Or am I
missing something obvious?

>
>> >> +static int __xdp_umem_reg(struct xdp_umem *umem, struct xdp_umem_reg *mr)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     u32 frame_size = mr->frame_size, frame_headroom = mr->frame_headroom;
>> >> +     u64 addr = mr->addr, size = mr->len;
>> >> +     unsigned int nframes;
>> >> +     int size_chk, err;
>> >> +
>> >> +     if (frame_size < XDP_UMEM_MIN_FRAME_SIZE || frame_size > PAGE_SIZE) {
>> >> +             /* Strictly speaking we could support this, if:
>> >> +              * - huge pages, or*
>> >
>> > what does "or*" here mean?
>> >
>>
>> Oops, I'll change to just 'or' in the next revision.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Björn