netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/33] xdp: add frame size to xdp

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: <20200408181308.4e1cf9fc@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:13:08 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>,
        "akiyano@...zon.com" <akiyano@...zon.com>,
        "willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com" <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        "borkmann@...earbox.net" <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        "jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "toke@...hat.com" <toke@...hat.com>,
        "alexei.starovoitov@...il.com" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        "gtzalik@...zon.com" <gtzalik@...zon.com>,
        "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "sameehj@...zon.com" <sameehj@...zon.com>,
        "alexander.duyck@...il.com" <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        "zorik@...zon.com" <zorik@...zon.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lorenzo@...nel.org" <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/33] xdp: add frame size to xdp_buff

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 00:48:30 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > + * This macro reserves tailroom in the XDP buffer by limiting the
> > > + * XDP/BPF data access to data_hard_end.  Notice same area (and
> > > size)
> > > + * is used for XDP_PASS, when constructing the SKB via
> > > build_skb().
> > > + */
> > > +#define xdp_data_hard_end(xdp)				\
> > > +	((xdp)->data_hard_start + (xdp)->frame_sz -	\
> > > +	 SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))  
> > 
> > I think it should be said somewhere that the drivers are expected to
> > DMA map memory up to xdp_data_hard_end(xdp).
> >   
> 
> but this works on a specific xdp buff, drivers work with mtu
> 
> and what if the driver want to have this as an option per packet .. 
> i.e.: if there is enough tail room, then build_skb, otherwise
> alloc new skb, copy headers, setup data frags.. etc
> 
> having such limitations on driver can be very strict, i think the
> decision must remain dynamic per frame..
> 
> of-course drivers should optimize to preserve enough tail room for all
> rx packets.. 

My concern is that driver may allocate a full page for each frame but
only DMA map the amount that can reasonably contain data given the MTU.
To save on DMA syncs.

Today that wouldn't be a problem, because XDP_REDIRECT will re-map the
page, and XDP_TX has the same MTU.

In this set xdp_data_hard_end is used both to find the end of memory
buffer, and end of DMA buffer. Implementation of bpf_xdp_adjust_tail()
assumes anything < SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) from
the end is fair game.

So I was trying to say that we should warn driver authors that the DMA
buffer can now grow / move beyond what the driver may expect in XDP_TX.
Drivers can either DMA map enough memory, or handle the corner case in
a special way.

IDK if that makes sense, we may be talking past each other :)