netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/21] net/tcp: add MSG

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:09:48 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        bjorn.topel@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        borisp@...lanox.com, david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 15/21] net/tcp: add MSG_NETDMA flag for sendmsg()

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:56 AM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 08:19:43AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:51 AM Jonathan Lemon
> > <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This flag indicates that the attached data is a zero-copy send,
> > > and the pages should be retrieved from the netgpu module.  The
> > > socket should should already have been attached to a netgpu queue.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/socket.h | 1 +
> > >  net/ipv4/tcp.c         | 8 ++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/socket.h b/include/linux/socket.h
> > > index 04d2bc97f497..63816cc25dee 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/socket.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/socket.h
> > > @@ -310,6 +310,7 @@ struct ucred {
> > >                                           */
> > >
> > >  #define MSG_ZEROCOPY   0x4000000       /* Use user data in kernel path */
> > > +#define MSG_NETDMA     0x8000000
> > >  #define MSG_FASTOPEN   0x20000000      /* Send data in TCP SYN */
> > >  #define MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC 0x40000000    /* Set close_on_exec for file
> > >                                            descriptor received through
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > index 261c28ccc8f6..340ce319edc9 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > @@ -1214,6 +1214,14 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
> > >                         uarg->zerocopy = 0;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       if (flags & MSG_NETDMA && size && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
> > > +               zc = sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG;
> > > +               if (!zc) {
> > > +                       err = -EFAULT;
> > > +                       goto out_err;
> > > +               }
> > > +       }
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, no, we can not allow adding yet another branch into TCP fast
> > path for yet another variant of zero copy.
>
> I'm not in disagreement with that statement, but the existing zerocopy
> work makes some assumptions that aren't suitable.  I take it that you'd
> rather have things folded together so the old/new code works together?

Exact.  Forcing users to use MSG_NETDMA, yet reusing SOCK_ZEROCOPY is silly.

SOCK_ZEROCOPY has been added to that user space and kernel would agree
on MSG_ZEROCOPY being not a nop (as it was on old kernels)

>
> Allocating an extra structure for every skbuff isn't ideal in my book.
>

We do not allocate a structure for every skbuff. Please look again.


>
> > Overall, I think your patch series desperately tries to add changes in
> > TCP stack, while there is yet no proof
> > that you have to use TCP transport between the peers.
>
> The goal is having a reliable transport without resorting to RDMA.

And why should it be TCP ?

Are you dealing with lost packets, retransmits, timers, and al  ?