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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:17:51 -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 7:11 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:44:59AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Jonathan Lemon
> > <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:09:48AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I'm looking here:
> > >
> > >     uarg = sock_zerocopy_realloc(sk, size, skb_zcopy(skb));
> > >
> > > Doesn't sock_zerocopy_realloc() allocate a new structure if the skb
> > > doesn't have one already?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > 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  ?
> > >
> > > Yes?  If there was a true lossless medium, RDMA would have taken over by
> > > now.  Or are you suggesting that the transport protocol reliability
> > > should be performed in userspace?  (not all the world is QUIC yet)
> > >
> >
> > The thing is : this patch series is a monster thing adding stuff that
> > is going to impact 100% % of TCP flows,
> > even if not used in this NETDMA context.
> >
> > So you need to convince us you are really desperate to get this in
> > upstream linux.
> >
> > I have implemented TCP RX zero copy without adding a single line in
> > standard TCP code.
>
> That's a bit of an exaggeration, as I see skb_zcopy_*() calls scattered
> around the normal TCP code path.  I also haven't changed the normal TCP
> path either, other than doing some of the same things as skb_zcopy_*().
> (ignoring the ugly moron about padding out the TCP header, which I'll
> put under a static_branch_unlikely).


You are mixing TX zerocopy and RX zero copy.  Quite different things.

My claim was about TCP RX zero copy (aka tcp_zerocopy_receive())


>
> The thing is, the existing zero copy code is zero-copy to /host/ memory,
> which is not the same thing as zero-copy to other memory areas.

You have to really explain what difference it makes, and why current
stuff can not be extended.