netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: try to avoid kzalloc in cgroup/{s,g}etsockopt

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, 21 Dec 2020 14:25:50 -0800
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: try to avoid kzalloc in cgroup/{s,g}etsockopt

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 9:24 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> When we attach a bpf program to cgroup/getsockopt any other getsockopt()
> syscall starts incurring kzalloc/kfree cost. While, in general, it's
> not an issue, sometimes it is, like in the case of TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE.
> TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE (ab)uses getsockopt system call to implement
> fastpath for incoming TCP, we don't want to have extra allocations in
> there.
>
> Let add a small buffer on the stack and use it for small (majority)
> {s,g}etsockopt values. I've started with 128 bytes to cover
> the options we care about (TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE which is 32 bytes
> currently, with some planned extension to 64 + some headroom
> for the future).
>
> It seems natural to do the same for setsockopt, but it's a bit more
> involved when the BPF program modifies the data (where we have to
> kmalloc). The assumption is that for the majority of setsockopt
> calls (which are doing pure BPF options or apply policy) this
> will bring some benefit as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>

Could you please share some performance numbers for this optimization?

Thanks,
Song

[...]