netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: adding map batch processing 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:35:52 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: adding map batch processing support

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 04:07:17PM -0700, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> 
> We could also modify get_next_key behaviour _only_ when it's called
> from a dumping function in which case we do know that we want to move
> forward not backwards (basically if prev_key is not found, then
> retrieve the first key in the next bucket).
> 
> That approach might miss entries that are in the same bucket where the
> prev_key used to be, but missing entries is something that can always
> happen (new additions in previous buckets), we can not control that
> and as it has said before, if users care about consistency they can
> use map-in-map.

for dump-all case such miss of elements might be ok-ish,
but for delete-all it's probably not.
Imagine bpf prog is doing delete and bcc script is doing delete-all.
With 'go to the next bucket' logic there will be a case where
both kernel and user side are doing delete, but some elements are still left.
True that map-in-map is the answer, but if we're doing new get_next op
we probably should do it with less corner cases.

> > This all requires new per-map implementations unfortunately :-(
> > We were trying to see if we can somehow improve the existing bpf_map_ops
> > to be more friendly towards batching.
> 
> Agreed that one of the motivations for current batching implementation
> was to re use the existing code as much as we can. Although this might
> be a good opportunity to do some per-map implementations as long as
> they behave better than the current ones.

I don't think non reuse of get_next is a big deal.
Adding another get_next_v2 to all maps is a low cost comparing
with advantages of having stable iterate api.

stable walk over hash map is imo more important feature of api than
perf improvement brought by batching.