netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 01/14] xdp: introduce mb in xdp_buff/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: <CAKgT0UeR8ErY4AOAiWxpR-j8QEs7GqCGrx58-7oaU3fnV=sU3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:16:00 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, shayagr@...zon.com,
        "Jubran, Samih" <sameehj@...zon.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, dsahern@...nel.org,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 01/14] xdp: introduce mb in xdp_buff/xdp_frame

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:03 PM Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 13:16 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:36 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Introduce multi-buffer bit (mb) in xdp_frame/xdp_buffer data
> > > structure
> > > in order to specify if this is a linear buffer (mb = 0) or a multi-
> > > buffer
> > > frame (mb = 1). In the latter case the shared_info area at the end
> > > of the
> > > first buffer is been properly initialized to link together
> > > subsequent
> > > buffers.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  include/net/xdp.h | 8 ++++++--
> > >  net/core/xdp.c    | 1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/net/xdp.h b/include/net/xdp.h
> > > index 700ad5db7f5d..70559720ff44 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/xdp.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/xdp.h
> > > @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ struct xdp_buff {
> > >         void *data_hard_start;
> > >         struct xdp_rxq_info *rxq;
> > >         struct xdp_txq_info *txq;
> > > -       u32 frame_sz; /* frame size to deduce
> > > data_hard_end/reserved tailroom*/
> > > +       u32 frame_sz:31; /* frame size to deduce
> > > data_hard_end/reserved tailroom*/
> > > +       u32 mb:1; /* xdp non-linear buffer */
> > >  };
> > >
> >
> > If we are really going to do something like this I say we should just
> > rip a swath of bits out instead of just grabbing one. We are already
> > cutting the size down then we should just decide on the minimum size
> > that is acceptable and just jump to that instead of just stealing one
> > bit at a time. It looks like we already have differences between the
> > size here and frame_size in xdp_frame.
> >
>
> +1
>
> > If we have to steal a bit why not look at something like one of the
> > lower 2/3 bits in rxq? You could then do the same thing using dev_rx
> > in a similar fashion instead of stealing from a bit that is likely to
> > be used in multiple spots and modifying like this adds extra overhead
> > to?
> >
>
> What do you mean in rxq ? from the pointer ?

Yeah, the pointers have a few bits that are guaranteed 0 and in my
mind reusing the lower bits from a 4 or 8 byte aligned pointer would
make more sense then stealing the upper bits from the size of the
frame.