netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Introduce bpf

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]

Message-ID: <87cztgyo0d.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 20:39:46 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Introduce bpf_timer

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes:

> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 8:58 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 4:48 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Still wrapping my head around this, but one thing immediately sprang to
>> > mind:
>> >
>> > > + * long bpf_timer_mod(struct bpf_timer *timer, u64 msecs)
>> > > + *   Description
>> > > + *           Set the timer expiration N msecs from the current time.
>> > > + *   Return
>> > > + *           zero
>> >
>> > Could we make this use nanoseconds (and wire it up to hrtimers) instead?
>> > I would like to eventually be able to use this for pacing out network
>> > packets, and msec precision is way too coarse for that...
>>
>> msecs are used to avoid exposing jiffies to bpf prog, since msec_to_jiffies
>> isn't trivial to do in the bpf prog unlike the kernel.
>> hrtimer would be great to support as well.
>> It could be implemented via flags (which are currently zero only)
>> but probably not as a full replacement for jiffies based timers.
>> Like array vs hash. bpf_timer can support both.
>
> After reading the hrtimer code I might take the above statement back...
> hrtimer looks strictly better than timerwheel and jiffies.
> It scales well and there are no concerns with overload,
> since sys_nanonsleep and tcp are heavy users.
> So I'm thinking to drop jiffies approach and do hrtimer only.
> wdyt?

Oops, sorry, crossed streams, didn't see this before sending my other
reply. Yeah, hrtimers only SGTM :)

-Toke