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  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, 8 May 2020 09:54:05 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] virtio-net: fix the XDP truesize calculation
 for mergeable buffers

On 2020/5/6 下午8:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:21:15PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2020/5/6 下午3:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:16:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> We should not exclude headroom and tailroom when XDP is set. So this
>>>> patch fixes this by initializing the truesize from PAGE_SIZE when XDP
>>>> is set.
>>>> Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer<>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<>
>>> Seems too aggressive, we do not use up the whole page for the size.
>> For XDP yes, we do:
>> static unsigned int get_mergeable_buf_len(struct receive_queue *rq,
>>                        struct ewma_pkt_len *avg_pkt_len,
>>                        unsigned int room)
>> {
>>      const size_t hdr_len = sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf);
>>      unsigned int len;
>>      if (room)
>>          return PAGE_SIZE - room;
>> ...
>> Thanks
> Hmm. But that's only for new buffers. Buffers that were outstanding
> before xdp was attached don't use the whole page, do they?

They don't and in either case, we've encoded truesize in the ctx. Any 
issue you saw?

> Also, with TCP smallqueues blocking the queue like that might be a problem.
> Could you try and check performance impact of this?

I'm not sure I get you, TCP small queue is more about TX I guess. And 
since we've invalidated the vnet header, the performance of XDP_PASS 
won't be good.

> I looked at what other drivers do and I see they tend to copy the skb
> in XDP_PASS case. ATM we don't normally - but should we?

My understanding is XDP runs before skb, so I don't get here. Or maybe 
you can point me the driver you mentioned here? I've checked i40e and 
mlx5e, both of them build skb after XDP.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists