netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v8 00/19] virtio/vsock: introduce SOCK

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, 22 Apr 2021 12:02:17 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stsp2@...dex.ru" <stsp2@...dex.ru>,
        "oxffffaa@...il.com" <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 00/19] virtio/vsock: introduce SOCK_SEQPACKET
 support

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:40:17PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>On 22.04.2021 11:46, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:06:28PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> Thank You, i'll prepare next version. Main question is: does this
>>> approach(no SEQ_BEGIN, SEQ_END, 'msg_len' and 'msg_id') considered
>>> good? In this case it will be easier to prepare final version, because
>>> is smaller and more simple than previous logic. Also patch to spec
>>> will be smaller.
>> Yes, it's definitely much better than before.
>>
>> The only problem I see is that we add some overhead per fragment
>> (header). We could solve that with the mergeable buffers that Jiang is
>> considering for DGRAM.
>
>If we are talking about receive, i think, i can reuse merge logic for

Yep, for TX the guest can potentially enqueue a big buffer.
Maybe it's still worth keeping a maximum size and fragmenting as we do 
now.

>
>stream sockets, the only difference is that buffers are mergeable
>until previous EOR(e.g. previous message) bit is found in rx queue.
>

I got a little lost.
Can you elaborate more?

Thanks,
Stefano