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, 31 Dec 2020 12:14:13 -0800
From:   sdf@...gle.com
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 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 12/30, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:22:41PM -0800, 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).
> >
> > I don't really know the rule of thumb, but 128 bytes on stack feels too  
> big to
> > me. I would like to hear others' opinions on this. Can we solve the  
> problem
> > with some other mechanisms, e.g. a mempool?
> It seems the do_tcp_getsockopt() is also having "struct  
> tcp_zerocopy_receive"
> in the stack.  I think the buf here is also mimicking
> "struct tcp_zerocopy_receive", so should not cause any
> new problem.
Good point!

> However, "struct tcp_zerocopy_receive" is only 40 bytes now.  I think it
> is better to have a smaller buf for now and increase it later when the
> the future needs in "struct tcp_zerocopy_receive" is also upstreamed.
I can lower it to 64. Or even 40?

I can also try to add something like BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct
tcp_zerocopy_receive) < BPF_SOCKOPT_KERN_BUF_SIZE) to make sure this
buffer gets adjusted whenever we touch tcp_zerocopy_receive.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists