netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: gro: minor optimization for dev_gro

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, 02 Feb 2022 11:09:41 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: gro: minor optimization for
 dev_gro_receive()

Hello,

On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 18:39 +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:31:00 +0100
> 
> > On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 16:56 +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:24:19 +0100
> > > 
> > > > While inspecting some perf report, I noticed that the compiler
> > > > emits suboptimal code for the napi CB initialization, fetching
> > > > and storing multiple times the memory for flags bitfield.
> > > > This is with gcc 10.3.1, but I observed the same with older compiler
> > > > versions.
> > > > 
> > > > We can help the compiler to do a nicer work e.g. initially setting
> > > > all the bitfield to 0 using an u16 alias. The generated code is quite
> > > > smaller, with the same number of conditional
> > > > 
> > > > Before:
> > > > objdump -t net/core/gro.o | grep " F .text"
> > > > 0000000000000bb0 l     F .text	0000000000000357 dev_gro_receive
> > > > 
> > > > After:
> > > > 0000000000000bb0 l     F .text	000000000000033c dev_gro_receive
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/net/gro.h | 13 +++++++++----
> > > >  net/core/gro.c    | 16 +++++-----------
> > > >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/gro.h b/include/net/gro.h
> > > > index 8f75802d50fd..a068b27d341f 100644
> > > > --- a/include/net/gro.h
> > > > +++ b/include/net/gro.h
> > > > @@ -29,14 +29,17 @@ struct napi_gro_cb {
> > > >  	/* Number of segments aggregated. */
> > > >  	u16	count;
> > > >  
> > > > -	/* Start offset for remote checksum offload */
> > > > -	u16	gro_remcsum_start;
> > > > +	/* Used in ipv6_gro_receive() and foo-over-udp */
> > > > +	u16	proto;
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* jiffies when first packet was created/queued */
> > > >  	unsigned long age;
> > > >  
> > > > -	/* Used in ipv6_gro_receive() and foo-over-udp */
> > > > -	u16	proto;
> > > > +	/* portion of the cb set to zero at every gro iteration */
> > > > +	u32	zeroed_start[0];
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Start offset for remote checksum offload */
> > > > +	u16	gro_remcsum_start;
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* This is non-zero if the packet may be of the same flow. */
> > > >  	u8	same_flow:1;
> > > > @@ -70,6 +73,8 @@ struct napi_gro_cb {
> > > >  	/* GRO is done by frag_list pointer chaining. */
> > > >  	u8	is_flist:1;
> > > >  
> > > > +	u32	zeroed_end[0];
> > > 
> > > This should be wrapped in struct_group() I believe, or compilers
> > > will start complaining soon. See [0] for the details.
> > > Adding Kees to the CCs.
> > 
> > Thank you for the reference. That really slipped-off my mind.
> > 
> > This patch does not use memcpy() or similar, just a single direct
> > assignement. Would that still require struct_group()?
> 
> Oof, sorry, I saw start/end and overlooked that it's only for
> a single assignment.
> Then it shouldn't cause warnings, but maybe use an anonymous
> union instead?
> 
> 	union {
> 		u32 zeroed;
> 		struct {
> 			u16 gro_remcsum_start;
> 			...
> 		};
> 	};
> 	__wsum csum;
> 
> Use can still use a BUILD_BUG_ON() in this case, like
> sizeof(zeroed) != offsetof(csum) - offsetof(zeroed).

Please forgive me for the very long delay. I'm looking again at this
stuff for formal non-rfc submission.

I like the anonymous union less, because it will move around much more
code - making the patch less readable - and will be more fragile e.g.
some comment alike "please don't move around 'csum'" would be needed.

No strong opinion anyway, so if you really prefer that way I can adapt.
Please let me know.

Thanks!

Paolo