netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: forbid direct reclaim if MSG

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: <CANn89iKe4vETuo-FBZ8ZrovJGiimBbhbzBnbqawX_h0LA+8PoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 07:58:14 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: forbid direct reclaim if MSG_DONTWAIT is
 set in send path

> >
> There was a network latency (hunreds msecs or even one sec ) recently
> on our production enviroment.
> And finally I diagnosed that this latency was caused by direct reclaim
> in tcp_sendmsg.
> That issue could be resovled by keeping a reserved memory.
> But I think deeply that why not forbid direct reclaim if we set MSG_DONWAIT.
> So I did this change and tested it. The application got a errno
> returned instead of being blocked in send path.
> That's why I sumbit this patch.

Sure, and I asked you how you have tested it, because it seems clear
to me that  you missed
the real memory allocation point (We fill up to 64 KB of page
fragments memory into one (small) skb)

And how is the application going to use MSG_DONTWAIT in the real
world, I do wonder as well.

We do not add bloat in the kernel if no application is ever going to
use it, especially in the TCP fast path.

Give us a test, so that we can see how this can be used...

Thanks.