| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:09:35 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: recvfrom/recvmsg performance and CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 06:21 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On 12/6/19 5:39 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > Some tests I've done seem to show that recvmsg() is much slower that recvfrom()
> > even though most of what they do is the same.
>
> Not really.
>
> > One thought is that the difference is all the extra copy_from_user() needed by
> > recvmsg. CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY can add a significant cost.
> >
> > I've built rebuilt my 5.4-rc7 kernel with all the copy_to/from_user() in net/socket.c
> > replaced with the '_' prefixed versions (that don't call check_object()).
> > And also changed rw_copy_check_uvector() in fs/read_write.c.
> >
> > Schedviz then showed the time spent by the application thread that calls
> > recvmsg() (about) 225 times being reduced from 0.9ms to 0.75ms.
> >
> > I've now instrumented the actual recv calls. It show some differences,
> > but now enough to explain the 20% difference above.
> > (This is all made more difficult because my Ivy Bridge i7-3770 refuses
> > to run at a fixed frequency.)
> >
> > Anyway using PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES I've got the following
> > histograms for the number of cycles in each recv call.
> > There are about the same number (2.8M) in each column over
> > an elapsed time of 20 seconds.
> > There are 450 active UDP sockets, each receives 1 message every 20ms.
> > Every 10ms a RT thread that is pinned to a cpu reads all the pending messages.
> > This is a 4 core hyperthreading (8 cpu) system.
> > During these tests 5 other threads are also busy.
> > There are no sends (on those sockets).
> >
> > | recvfrom | recvmsg
> > cycles | unhard | hard | unhard | hard
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > 1472: 29 1 0 0
> > 1600: 8980 4887 3 0
> > 1728: 112540 159518 5393 2895
> > 1856: 174555 270148 119054 111230
> > 1984: 126007 168383 152310 195288
> > 2112: 80249 87045 118941 168801
> > 2240: 61570 54790 81847 110561
> > 2368: 95088 61796 57496 71732
> > 2496: 193633 155870 54020 54801
> > 2624: 274997 284921 102465 74626
> > 2752: 276661 295715 160492 119498
> > 2880: 248751 264174 206327 186028
> > 3008: 207532 213067 230704 229232
> > 3136: 167976 164804 226493 238555
> > 3264: 133708 124857 202639 220574
> > 3392: 107859 95696 172949 189475
> > 3520: 88599 75943 141056 153524
> > 3648: 74290 61586 115873 120994
> > 3776: 62253 50891 96061 95040
> > 3904: 52213 42482 81113 76577
> > 4032: 42920 34632 69077 63131
> > 4160: 35472 28327 60074 53631
> > 4288: 28787 22603 51345 46620
> > 4416: 24072 18496 44006 40325
> > 4544: 20107 14886 37185 34516
> > 4672: 16759 12206 31408 29031
> > 4800: 14195 9991 26843 24396
> > 4928: 12356 8167 22775 20165
> > 5056: 10387 6931 19404 16591
> > 5184: 9284 5916 16817 13743
> > 5312: 7994 5116 14737 11452
> > 5440: 7152 4495 12592 9607
> > 5568: 6300 3969 11117 8592
> > 5696: 5445 3421 9988 7237
> > 5824: 4683 2829 8839 6368
> > 5952: 3959 2643 7652 5652
> > 6080: 3454 2377 6442 4814
> > 6208: 3041 2219 5735 4170
> > 6336: 2840 2060 5059 3615
> > 6464: 2428 1975 4433 3201
> > 6592: 2109 1794 4078 2823
> > 6720: 1871 1382 3549 2558
> > 6848: 1706 1262 3110 2328
> > 6976: 1567 1001 2733 1991
> > 7104: 1436 873 2436 1819
> > 7232: 1417 860 2102 1652
> > 7360: 1414 741 1823 1429
> > 7488: 1372 814 1663 1239
> > 7616: 1201 896 1430 1152
> > 7744: 1275 1008 1364 1049
> > 7872: 1382 1120 1367 925
> > 8000: 1316 1282 1253 815
> > 8128: 1264 1266 1313 792
> > 8256+: 19252 19450 34703 30228
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Total: 2847707 2863582 2853688 2877088
> >
> > This does show a few interesting things:
> > 1) The 'hardened' kernel is slower, especially for recvmsg.
> > 2) The difference for recvfrom isn't enough for the 20% reduction I saw.
> > 3) There are two peaks at the top a 'not insubstantial' number are a lot
> > faster than the main peak.
> > 4) There is second peak way down at 8000 cycles.
> > This is repeatable.
> >
> > Any idea what is actually going on??
> >
>
> Real question is : Do you actually need to use recvmsg() instead of recvfrom() ?
>
> If recvmsg() provides additional cmsg, this is not surprising it is more expensive.
>
> recvmsg() also uses an indirect call, so CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y is probably hurting.
>
> err = (nosec ? sock_recvmsg_nosec : sock_recvmsg)(sock, msg_sys, flags);
>
> Maybe a INDIRECT_CALL annotation could help, or rewriting this to not let gcc
> use an indirect call.
>
>
> diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
> index ea28cbb9e2e7a7180ee63de2d09a81aacb001ab7..752714281026dab6db850ec7fa75b7aa6240661f 100644
> --- a/net/socket.c
> +++ b/net/socket.c
> @@ -2559,7 +2559,10 @@ static int ____sys_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg_sys,
>
> if (sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> flags |= MSG_DONTWAIT;
> - err = (nosec ? sock_recvmsg_nosec : sock_recvmsg)(sock, msg_sys, flags);
> + if (nosec)
> + err = sock_recvmsg_nosec(sock, msg_sys, flags);
> + else
> + err = sock_recvmsg(sock, msg_sys, flags);
> if (err < 0)
> goto out;
> len = err;
Oh, nice! I though the compiler was smart enough to avoid the indirect
call with the current code, but it looks like that least gcc 9.2.1 is
not.
Thanks for pointing that out!
In this specific scenario I think the code you propose above is better
than INDIRECT_CALL.
Would you submit the patch formally?
Thank you!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists