netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: don't keep lonely packets forever in the gro hash

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: <b403be03-6e7b-1dc5-c89d-47227b12bc6a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 05:49:47 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: don't keep lonely packets forever in the gro
 hash



On 11/20/2018 02:17 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Eric noted that with UDP GRO and napi timeout, we could keep a single
> UDP packet inside the GRO hash forever, if the related NAPI instance
> calls napi_gro_complete() at an higher frequency than the napi timeout.
> Willem noted that even TCP packets could be trapped there, till the
> next retransmission.
> This patch tries to address the issue, flushing the oldest packets before
> scheduling the NAPI timeout. The rationale is that such a timeout should be
> well below a jiffy and we are not flushing packets eligible for sane GRO.
> 
> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> ---
> Sending as RFC, as I fear I'm missing some relevant pieces.
> Also I'm unsure if this should considered a fixes for "udp: implement
> GRO for plain UDP sockets." or for "net: gro: add a per device gro flush timer"

You can add both, now worries.

Google DC TCP forces a PSH flag on all TSO packets, so for us the flush is done
because of the PSH flag, not upon a timer/jiffie.

Truth be told, relying on jiffies change is a bit fragile for HZ=100 or HZ=250 kernels.

See recent TCP commit that got rid of tcp_tso_should_defer() dependency on HZ/jiffies

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=a682850a114aef947da5d603f7fd2cfe7eabbd72


> ---
>  net/core/dev.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 5927f6a7c301..5cc4c4961869 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -5975,11 +5975,14 @@ bool napi_complete_done(struct napi_struct *n, int work_done)
>  		if (work_done)
>  			timeout = n->dev->gro_flush_timeout;
>  
> +		/* When the NAPI instance uses a timeout, we still need to
> +		 * someout bound the time packets are keept in the GRO layer
> +		 * under heavy traffic
> +		 */
> +		napi_gro_flush(n, !!timeout);
>  		if (timeout)
>  			hrtimer_start(&n->timer, ns_to_ktime(timeout),
>  				      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED);
> -		else
> -			napi_gro_flush(n, false);
>  	}
>  	if (unlikely(!list_empty(&n->poll_list))) {
>  		/* If n->poll_list is not empty, we need to mask irqs */
>