netdev - Re: Regression: kernel 4.14 an later very slow with many ipsec tunnels

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: <20180914055437.77pffp2jrbfnykbp@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:54:37 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux@...m.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, christophe.gouault@...nd.com
Subject: Re: Regression: kernel 4.14 an later very slow with many ipsec
 tunnels

Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:03:25PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > > From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:38:48 +0200
> > > 
> > > > Wolfgang Walter <linux@...m.de> wrote:
> > > >> What I can say is that it depends mainly on number of policy rules and SA.
> > > > 
> > > > Thats already a good hint, I guess we're hitting long hash chains in
> > > > xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype().
> > > 
> > > I don't really see how recent changes can influence that.
> > 
> > I don't think there is a recent change that did this.
> > 
> > Walter says < 4.14 is ok, so this is likely related to flow cache removal.
> > 
> > F.e. it looks like all prefixed policies end up in a linked list
> > (net->xfrm.policy_inexact) and are not even in a hash table.
> > 
> > I am staring at b58555f1767c9f4e330fcf168e4e753d2d9196e0
> > but can't figure out how to configure that away from the
> > 'no hashing for prefixed policies' default or why we even have
> > policy_inexact in first place :/
> 
> The hash threshold can be configured like this:
> 
> ip x p set hthresh4 0 0
> 
> This sets the hash threshold to local /0 and remote /0 netmasks.
> With this configuration, all policies should go to the hashtable.

Yes, but won't they all be hashed to same bucket?

[ jhash(addr & 0, addr & 0) ] ?

> Default hash thresholds are local /32 and remote /32 netmasks, so
> all prefixed policies go to the inexact list.

Yes.

Wolfgang, before having to work on getting perf into your router image
can you perhaps share a bit of info about the policies you're using?

How many are there?  Are they prefixed or not ("10.1.2.1")?