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  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:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:01:08 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Boris Pismenny <borispismenny@...il.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        saeedm@...dia.com, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me, axboe@...com,
        kbusch@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, edumazet@...gle.com,
        boris.pismenny@...il.com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, benishay@...dia.com, ogerlitz@...dia.com,
        yorayz@...dia.com, Ben Ben-Ishay <benishay@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Yoray Zack <yorayz@...lanox.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 02/15] net: Introduce direct data placement
 tcp offload

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:26:05 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> Yes, TCP is a byte stream, so the packets could very well show up like this:
> 
>  +--------------+---------+-----------+---------+--------+-----+
>  | data - seg 1 | PDU hdr | prev data | TCP hdr | IP hdr | eth |
>  +--------------+---------+-----------+---------+--------+-----+
>  +-----------------------------------+---------+--------+-----+
>  |     payload - seg 2               | TCP hdr | IP hdr | eth |
>  +-----------------------------------+---------+--------+-----+
>  +-------- +-------------------------+---------+--------+-----+
>  | PDU hdr |    payload - seg 3      | TCP hdr | IP hdr | eth |
>  +---------+-------------------------+---------+--------+-----+
> 
> If your hardware can extract the NVMe payload into a targeted SGL like
> you want in this set, then it has some logic for parsing headers and
> "snapping" an SGL to a new element. ie., it already knows 'prev data'
> goes with the in-progress PDU, sees more data, recognizes a new PDU
> header and a new payload. That means it already has to handle a
> 'snap-to-PDU' style argument where the end of the payload closes out an
> SGL element and the next PDU hdr starts in a new SGL element (ie., 'prev
> data' closes out sgl[i], and the next PDU hdr starts sgl[i+1]). So in
> this case, you want 'snap-to-PDU' but that could just as easily be 'no
> snap at all', just a byte stream and filling an SGL after the protocol
> headers.

This 'snap-to-PDU' requirement is something that I don't understand
with the current TCP zero copy. In case of, say, a storage application
which wants to send some headers (whatever RPC info, block number,
etc.) and then a 4k block of data - how does the RX side get just the
4k block a into a page so it can zero copy it out to its storage device?

Per-connection state in the NIC, and FW parsing headers is one way,
but I wonder how this record split problem is best resolved generically.
Perhaps by passing hints in the headers somehow?

Sorry for the slight off-topic :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists