netdev - Re: [RFC] tcp_bbr2: use correct 64-bit division

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: <CADVnQykt1Lz0m1gfEckHhDLy66xhJvO0F2Z1-yQ=Mgi7gBY5RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 16:05:55 -0400
From:   Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Yousuk Seung <ysseung@...gle.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Adithya Abraham Philip <abrahamphilip@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Konstantin Demin <rockdrilla@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp_bbr2: use correct 64-bit division

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:01 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Oleksandr Natalenko
> > Sent: 22 May 2022 23:30
> > To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
> >
> > Hello Neal.
> >
> > It was reported to me [1] by Konstantin (in Cc) that BBRv2 code suffers from integer division issue on
> > 32 bit systems.
>
> Do any of these divisions ever actually have 64bit operands?
> Even on x86-64 64bit divide is significantly slower than 32bit divide.
>
> It is quite clear that x * 8 / 1000 is the same as x / (1000 / 8).
> So promoting to 64bit cannot be needed.
>
>         David

The sk->sk_pacing_rate can definitely be bigger than 32 bits if the
network path can support more than 34 Gbit/sec  (a pacing rate of 2^32
bytes per sec is roughly 34 Gibt/sec). This definitely happens.

So  this one seems reasonable to me (and is only in debug code, so the
performance is probably fine):
-                (u64)sk->sk_pacing_rate * 8 / 1000,
+                div_u64((u64)sk->sk_pacing_rate * 8, 1000),

For the other two I agree we should rework them to avoid the 64-bit
divide, since we don't need it.

There is similar logic in mainline Linux in tcp_tso_autosize(), which
is currently using "unsigned long" for bytes.

Eric, what do you advise?

thanks,
neal