netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] remove msize limit in virtio transport

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: <22204794.ZpPF1Y2lYg@silver>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:57:35 +0100
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc:     Nikolay Kichukov <nikolay@...um.net>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] remove msize limit in virtio transport

On Montag, 24. Januar 2022 12:07:20 CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Nikolay Kichukov wrote on Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:21:08AM +0100:
> > It works, sorry for overlooking the 'known limitations' in the first
> > place. When do we expect these patches to be merged upstream?
> 
> We're just starting a new development cycle for 5.18 while 5.17 is
> stabilizing, so this mostly depends on the ability to check if a msize
> given in parameter is valid as described in the first "STILL TO DO"
> point listed in the cover letter.

I will ping the Redhat guys on the open virtio spec issue this week. If you 
want I can CC you Dominique on the discussion regarding the virtio spec 
changes. It's a somewhat dry topic though.

> I personally would be happy considering this series for this cycle with
> just a max msize of 4MB-8k and leave that further bump for later if
> we're sure qemu will handle it.

I haven't actually checked whether there was any old QEMU version that did not 
support exceeding the virtio queue size. So it might be possible that a very 
ancient QEMU version might error out if msize > (128 * 4096 = 512k).

Besides QEMU, what other 9p server implementations are actually out there, and 
how would they behave on this? A test on their side would definitely be a good 
idea.

> We're still seeing a boost for that and the smaller buffers for small
> messages will benefit all transport types, so that would get in in
> roughly two months for 5.18-rc1, then another two months for 5.18 to
> actually be released and start hitting production code.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when exactly but I'll run some tests with it as well and
> redo a proper code review within the next few weeks, so we can get this
> in -next for a little while before the merge window.

Especially the buffer size reduction patches needs a proper review. Those 
changes can be tricky. So far I have not encountered any issues with tests at 
least. OTOH these patches could be pushed through separately already, no 
matter what the decision regarding the virtio issue will be.

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck