netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next,RFC 00/13] New fast forwarding path

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:50:49 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,RFC 00/13] New fast forwarding path

> This patchset supports both layer 3 IPv4 and IPv6, and layer 4 TCP and
> UDP protocols. This fastpath also integrates with the IPSec
> infrastructure and the ESP protocol.
>
> We have collected performance numbers:
>
>         TCP TSO         TCP Fast Forward
>         32.5 Gbps       35.6 Gbps
>
>         UDP             UDP Fast Forward
>         17.6 Gbps       35.6 Gbps
>
>         ESP             ESP Fast Forward
>         6 Gbps          7.5 Gbps
>
> For UDP, this is doubling performance, and we almost achieve line rate
> with one single CPU using the Intel i40e NIC. We got similar numbers
> with the Mellanox ConnectX-4. For TCP, this is slightly improving things
> even if TSO is being defeated given that we need to segment the packet
> chain in software.

The difference between TCP and UDP stems from lack of GRO for UDP. We
recently added UDP GSO to allow for batch traversal of the UDP stack on
transmission. Adding a UDP GRO handler can probably extend batching to
the forwarding path in a similar way without the need for a new infrastructure.