netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Clear memory when release and reuse buffer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211126112855.37274cb7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:28:55 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Clear memory when release and reuse buffer

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:28:59 +0800 Tony Lu wrote:
> Currently, buffers are clear when smc create connections and reuse
> buffer. It will slow down the speed of establishing new connection. In
> most cases, the applications hope to establish connections as quickly as
> possible.
> 
> This patch moves memset() from connection creation path to release and
> buffer unuse path, this trades off between speed of establishing and
> release.
> 
> Test environments:
> - CPU Intel Xeon Platinum 8 core, mem 32 GiB, nic Mellanox CX4
> - socket sndbuf / rcvbuf: 16384 / 131072 bytes
> - w/o first round, 5 rounds, avg, 100 conns batch per round
> - smc_buf_create() use bpftrace kprobe, introduces extra latency
> 
> Latency benchmarks for smc_buf_create():
>   w/o patch : 19040.0 ns
>   w/  patch :  1932.6 ns
>   ratio :        10.2% (-89.8%)
> 
> Latency benchmarks for socket create and connect:
>   w/o patch :   143.3 us
>   w/  patch :   102.2 us
>   ratio :        71.3% (-28.7%)
> 
> The latency of establishing connections is reduced by 28.7%.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>

The tag in the subject seems incorrect, we tag things as [PATCH net] 
if they are fixes, and as [PATCH net-next] if they are new features,
code refactoring or performance improvements.

Is this a fix for a regression? In which case we need a Fixes tag to
indicate where it was introduced. Otherwise it needs to be tagged as
[PATCH net-next].

I'm assuming Karsten will take it via his tree, otherwise you'll need
to repost.