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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF=yD-JW1ZA-LA6iJ0X83UMJxmNLh7VfmUK7B=7LbYMY--wO6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 15:17:20 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Fred Klassen <fklassen@...neta.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/1] net/udp_gso: Allow TX timestamp with UDP GSO

> > Asked elsewhere, but best answered here: given that xmit_more delays
> > delivery to the NIC until the last segment in a train, is the first
> > segment in your opinion still the best to attach the timestamp request
> > to?
> >
> > To reiterate, we do not want to need a follow-up patch to disable
> > xmit_more when timestamps are requested.
> >
>
> I think it would be worthwhile. I was playing with this patch …
>
> +               /* software TX timeststamps are sent immediately */
> +               if (tsflags & SKBTX_SW_TSTAMP)
> +                       seg->xmit_more = 0;
>
> … which attempts to address this issue. I believe that the patch
> should be applied for software timestamps only.

Disagree, sorry.

Timestamped packets should take the same path as non-timestamped, so
that sampled timestamps are representative of the overall workload.

Moreover, due to how xmit_more works, applying the timestamp request
to the last segment will give you exactly the behavior that you are
looking for (bar requeue events): a timestamp before the NIC starts
working on any byte in the request. And that approach will be useful
for measuring host latency as well, unlike timestamping the first
segment.

Timestamping the first, then arguing that it is not useful as is and
requires more changes is the wrong path imho.

Perhaps it is easiest to just not split off a segment from the GSO
train when timestamp that independently. That works today.

> However when
> I applied in net-next I got the following compile error, which suggests
> there is more investigation needed, and therefore requires a separate
> patch.
>
> net/ipv4/udp_offload.c: In function ‘__udp_gso_segment’:
> net/ipv4/udp_offload.c:251:7: error: ‘struct sk_buff’ has no member named ‘xmit_more’
>     seg->xmit_more = 0;

Yes, this has been moved to a percpu variable.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ