netdev - [PATCH net-next 03/27] sock: optimise sock_def_write

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: <488b0ee4247ae055503be8c01c6a96427c226f56.1648981571.git.asml.silence@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun,  3 Apr 2022 14:06:15 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Paul Durrant <paul@....org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 03/27] sock: optimise sock_def_write_space barriers

Now we have a separate path for sock_def_write_space() and can go one
step further. When it's called from sock_wfree() we know that there is a
preceding atomic for putting down ->sk_wmem_alloc. We can use it to
replace to replace smb_mb() with a less expensive
smp_mb__after_atomic(). It also removes an extra RCU read lock/unlock as
a small bonus.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
---
 net/core/sock.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index 9389bb602c64..b1a8f47fda55 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -144,6 +144,7 @@
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(proto_list_mutex);
 static LIST_HEAD(proto_list);
 
+static void sock_def_write_space_wfree(struct sock *sk);
 static void sock_def_write_space(struct sock *sk);
 
 /**
@@ -2309,7 +2310,7 @@ void sock_wfree(struct sk_buff *skb)
 		    sk->sk_write_space == sock_def_write_space) {
 			rcu_read_lock();
 			free = refcount_sub_and_test(len, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
-			sock_def_write_space(sk);
+			sock_def_write_space_wfree(sk);
 			rcu_read_unlock();
 			if (unlikely(free))
 				__sk_free(sk);
@@ -3201,6 +3202,29 @@ static void sock_def_write_space(struct sock *sk)
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
+/* An optimised version of sock_def_write_space(), should only be called
+ * for SOCK_RCU_FREE sockets under RCU read section and after putting
+ * ->sk_wmem_alloc.
+ */
+static void sock_def_write_space_wfree(struct sock *sk)
+{
+	/* Do not wake up a writer until he can make "significant"
+	 * progress.  --DaveM
+	 */
+	if (sock_writeable(sk)) {
+		struct socket_wq *wq = rcu_dereference(sk->sk_wq);
+
+		/* rely on refcount_sub from sock_wfree() */
+		smp_mb__after_atomic();
+		if (wq && waitqueue_active(&wq->wait))
+			wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&wq->wait, EPOLLOUT |
+						EPOLLWRNORM | EPOLLWRBAND);
+
+		/* Should agree with poll, otherwise some programs break */
+		sk_wake_async(sk, SOCK_WAKE_SPACE, POLL_OUT);
+	}
+}
+
 static void sock_def_destruct(struct sock *sk)
 {
 }
-- 
2.35.1