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 18:11:32 -0800
From:   sdf@...gle.com
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
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 12/21, Song Liu wrote:
> 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?
We've found out about this problem by looking at our global google
profiler, where TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE was showing up higher than usual.

So I don't really have a nice reproducer, but I would assume I can try
to run something like tools/testing/selftests/net/tcp_mmap.c under perf
and see if there is a clear difference.