netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] stmmac: align RX buffers

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:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:28:09 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] stmmac: align RX buffers

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> [adding Thierry, Jon and Will to the fun]
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 03:25:04 +0100,
> Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>
> > 
> > On RX an SKB is allocated and the received buffer is copied into it.
> > But on some architectures, the memcpy() needs the source and destination
> > buffers to have the same alignment to be efficient.
> > 
> > This is not our case, because SKB data pointer is misaligned by two bytes
> > to compensate the ethernet header.
> > 
> > Align the RX buffer the same way as the SKB one, so the copy is faster.
> > An iperf3 RX test gives a decent improvement on a RISC-V machine:
> > 
> > before:
> > [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
> > [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec   733 MBytes   615 Mbits/sec   88             sender
> > [  5]   0.00-10.01  sec   730 MBytes   612 Mbits/sec                  receiver
> > 
> > after:
> > [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
> > [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.10 GBytes   942 Mbits/sec    0             sender
> > [  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes   940 Mbits/sec                  receiver
> > 
> > And the memcpy() overhead during the RX drops dramatically.
> > 
> > before:
> > Overhead  Shared O  Symbol
> >   43.35%  [kernel]  [k] memcpy
> >   33.77%  [kernel]  [k] __asm_copy_to_user
> >    3.64%  [kernel]  [k] sifive_l2_flush64_range
> > 
> > after:
> > Overhead  Shared O  Symbol
> >   45.40%  [kernel]  [k] __asm_copy_to_user
> >   28.09%  [kernel]  [k] memcpy
> >    4.27%  [kernel]  [k] sifive_l2_flush64_range
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>
> 
> This patch completely breaks my Jetson TX2 system, composed of 2
> Nvidia Denver and 4 Cortex-A57, in a very "funny" way.
> 
> Any significant amount of traffic result in all sort of corruption
> (ssh connections get dropped, Debian packages downloaded have the
> wrong checksums) if any Denver core is involved in any significant way
> (packet processing, interrupt handling). And it is all triggered by
> this very change.
> 
> The only way I have to make it work on a Denver core is to route the
> interrupt to that particular core and taskset the workload to it. Any
> other configuration involving a Denver CPU results in some sort of
> corruption. On their own, the A57s are fine.
> 
> This smells of memory ordering going really wrong, which this change
> would expose. I haven't had a chance to dig into the driver yet (it
> took me long enough to bisect it), but if someone points me at what is
> supposed to synchronise the DMA when receiving an interrupt, I'll have
> a look.

I recall that Jon was looking into a similar issue recently, though I
think the failure mode was slightly different. I also vaguely recall
that CPU frequency was impacting this to some degree (lower CPU
frequencies would increase the chances of this happening).

Jon's currently out of office, but let me try and dig up the details
on this.

Thierry

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> > index b6cd43eda7ac..04bdb3950d63 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> > @@ -338,9 +338,9 @@ static inline bool stmmac_xdp_is_enabled(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> >  static inline unsigned int stmmac_rx_offset(struct stmmac_priv *priv)
> >  {
> >  	if (stmmac_xdp_is_enabled(priv))
> > -		return XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM;
> > +		return XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM + NET_IP_ALIGN;
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN;
> >  }
> >  
> >  void stmmac_disable_rx_queue(struct stmmac_priv *priv, u32 queue);
> > -- 
> > 2.31.1
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)