netdev - Explaining the XDP page-requirement (Was: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8] dpaa2-eth: Introduce XDP support)

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:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:31:19 +0100
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>
Cc:     Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@....com>,
        brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Explaining the XDP page-requirement (Was: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8]
 dpaa2-eth: Introduce XDP support)

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 18:07:49 +0000
Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com> wrote:

> Thanks a lot for the info, will look into this. Do you have any
> pointers as to why the full page restriction exists in the first
> place? Sorry if it's a dumb question, but I haven't found details on
> this and I'd really like to understand it.

Hi Ioana,

I promised (offlist) that I would get back to you explaining the XDP
page-requirement...

There are several reasons for XDP to require frames are backed by a
page.  It started out with a focus on gaining speed via simplicity.

The overall requirement is: XDP frame in physical contigious memory
 - which is a requirement from BPF Direct-Access, for validating correcness.
 - Implying you cannot split packet data over several pages.

An important part of the page-requirement is to allow creating SKB's
outside the driver code.  This happen today in both cpumap and veth
(when doing XDP_REDIRECT).  And we need to control and limit the
variations, to avoid having to handle all kind of SKB schemes.
Specifically we need enough tailroom for the skb-shared-info.

In the beginning we had the requirement of: 1-page per XDP frame.
 - Gave us a simplified memory model
 - Allow us to not touch atomic refcnt on page (always 1)
 - Fixed 256 bytes headroom
 - This gave us a lot of tailroom, expanding tail was trivial.

Eventually ixgbe+i40e force us to use a split-page model, allowing two
frames per page.
 - This started to complicate memory model
 - This unfortunately gave issue of unknown tailroom, which killed the
   tailroom expand option.
 - Changes XDP headroom to be variable (192 or 256 bytes)

E.g. I really want to allow bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() to *expand* the
frame size, but after allowing the split-page model, we couldn't allow
this easily.  And SKB alloc in cpumap/veth was also complicated by not
knowing (implicit) xdp_frame "hard-end".  (We might have to extend
xdp_buff with "data_hard_end").

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer