netdev - Re: [PATCHv14 bpf-next 1/6] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush instead of bulk enqueue

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:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:33:38 +0100
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv14 bpf-next 1/6] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush
 instead of bulk enqueue

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:07:17 +0800
Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:57:02PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> [...]
> > It looks like we could embed xdp_buff in xdp_frame and then keep the metadata
> > at the end.
> > 
> > Because you are working performance here wdyt? <- @Jesper as well.  
> 
> Leave this question to Jesper.

The struct xdp_buff is larger than struct xdp_frame.  The size of
xdp_frame matters. It is a reserved areas in top of the frame.
An XDP BPF-program cannot access this area (and limit headroom grow).
This is why this code works, as afterwards xdp_frame is still valid.
Looking at the code xdp_update_frame_from_buff() we do seem to update
more fields than actually needed.


> > >  
> > > -	sent = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q, flags);
> > > +	if (unlikely(bq->xdp_prog)) {  
> > 
> > Whats the rational for making above unlikely()? Seems for users its not
> > unlikely. Can you measure a performance increase/decrease here? I think
> > its probably fine to just let compiler/prefetcher do its thing here. Or
> > I'm not reading this right, but seems users of bq->xdp_prog would disagree
> > on unlikely case?
> > 
> > Either way a comment might be nice to give us some insight in 6 months
> > why we decided this is unlikely.  
> 
> I agree that there is no need to use unlikely() here.

I added the unlikely() to preserve the baseline performance when not
having the 2nd prog loaded.  But I'm fine with removing that.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer