netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 00/13] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer support

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: <5f7bf2b0bf899_4f19a2083f@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:29:36 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        shayagr@...zon.com, sameehj@...zon.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
        echaudro@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 00/13] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer
 support

Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > In general I see no reason to populate these fields before the XDP
> > program runs. Someone needs to convince me why having frags info before
> > program runs is useful. In general headers should be preserved and first
> > frag already included in the data pointers. If users start parsing further
> > they might need it, but this series doesn't provide a way to do that
> > so IMO without those helpers its a bit difficult to debate.
> 
> We need to populate the skb_shared_info before running the xdp program in order to
> allow the ebpf sanbox to access this data. If we restrict the access to the first
> buffer only I guess we can avoid to do that but I think there is a value allowing
> the xdp program to access this data.

I agree. We could also only populate the fields if the program accesses
the fields.

> A possible optimization can be access the shared_info only once before running
> the ebpf program constructing the shared_info using a struct allocated on the
> stack.

Seems interesting, might be a good idea.

> Moreover we can define a "xdp_shared_info" struct to alias the skb_shared_info
> one in order to have most on frags elements in the first "shared_info" cache line.
> 
> > 
> > Specifically for XDP_TX case we can just flip the descriptors from RX
> > ring to TX ring and keep moving along. This is going to be ideal on
> > 40/100Gbps nics.
> > 
> > I'm not arguing that its likely possible to put some prefetch logic
> > in there and keep the pipe full, but I would need to see that on
> > a 100gbps nic to be convinced the details here are going to work. Or
> > at minimum a 40gbps nic.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Not against it, but these things are a bit tricky. Couple things I still
> > want to see/understand
> > 
> >  - Lets see a 40gbps use a prefetch and verify it works in practice
> >  - Explain why we can't just do this after XDP program runs
> 
> how can we allow the ebpf program to access paged data if we do not do that?

I don't see an easy way, but also this series doesn't have the data
access support.

Its hard to tell until we get at least a 40gbps nic if my concern about
performance is real or not. Prefetching smartly could resolve some of the
issue I guess.

If the Intel folks are working on it I think waiting would be great. Otherwise
at minimum drop the helpers and be prepared to revert things if needed.

> 
> >  - How will we read data in the frag list if we need to parse headers
> >    inside the frags[].
> > 
> > The above would be best to answer now rather than later IMO.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > John
> 
> Regards,
> Lorenzo