netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] tcp: fix possible freeze in tx path under memory pressure

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: <CAEA6p_B43zQnuW6_C06RxMYUhvYdTyVgvshqqNu7+nJZzecWNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:41:30 -0700
From:   Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
To:     Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] tcp: fix possible freeze in tx path under
 memory pressure

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:42 AM Soheil Hassas Yeganeh
<soheil@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:17 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > Blamed commit only dealt with applications issuing small writes.
> >
> > Issue here is that we allow to force memory schedule for the sk_buff
> > allocation, but we have no guarantee that sendmsg() is able to
> > copy some payload in it.
> >
> > In this patch, I make sure the socket can use up to tcp_wmem[0] bytes.
> >
> > For example, if we consider tcp_wmem[0] = 4096 (default on x86),
> > and initial skb->truesize being 1280, tcp_sendmsg() is able to
> > copy up to 2816 bytes under memory pressure.
> >
> > Before this patch a sendmsg() sending more than 2816 bytes
> > would either block forever (if persistent memory pressure),
> > or return -EAGAIN.
> >
> > For bigger MTU networks, it is advised to increase tcp_wmem[0]
> > to avoid sending too small packets.
> >
> > v2: deal with zero copy paths.
> >
> > Fixes: 8e4d980ac215 ("tcp: fix behavior for epoll edge trigger")
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
>
> Very nice find! Thank you!
>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > index 14ebb4ec4a51f3c55501aa53423ce897599e8637..56083c2497f0b695c660256aa43f8a743d481697 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > @@ -951,6 +951,23 @@ static int tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int tcp_wmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int copy)
> > +{
> > +       int left;
> > +
> > +       if (likely(sk_wmem_schedule(sk, copy)))
> > +               return copy;
> > +
> > +       /* We could be in trouble if we have nothing queued.
> > +        * Use whatever is left in sk->sk_forward_alloc and tcp_wmem[0]
> > +        * to guarantee some progress.
> > +        */
> > +       left = sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_wmem[0] - sk->sk_wmem_queued;
> > +       if (left > 0)
> > +               sk_forced_mem_schedule(sk, min(left, copy));
> > +       return min(copy, sk->sk_forward_alloc);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static struct sk_buff *tcp_build_frag(struct sock *sk, int size_goal, int flags,
> >                                       struct page *page, int offset, size_t *size)
> >  {
> > @@ -986,7 +1003,11 @@ static struct sk_buff *tcp_build_frag(struct sock *sk, int size_goal, int flags,
> >                 tcp_mark_push(tp, skb);
> >                 goto new_segment;
> >         }
> > -       if (tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure(sk, skb) || !sk_wmem_schedule(sk, copy))
> > +       if (tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure(sk, skb))
> > +               return NULL;

Do we need to take care of the call to sk_wmem_schedule() inside
tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure()?

> > +
> > +       copy = tcp_wmem_schedule(sk, copy);
> > +       if (!copy)
> >                 return NULL;
> >
> >         if (can_coalesce) {
> > @@ -1334,8 +1355,11 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
> >
> >                         copy = min_t(int, copy, pfrag->size - pfrag->offset);
> >
> > -                       if (tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure(sk, skb) ||
> > -                           !sk_wmem_schedule(sk, copy))
> > +                       if (tcp_downgrade_zcopy_pure(sk, skb))
> > +                               goto wait_for_space;
> > +
> > +                       copy = tcp_wmem_schedule(sk, copy);
> > +                       if (!copy)
> >                                 goto wait_for_space;
> >
> >                         err = skb_copy_to_page_nocache(sk, &msg->msg_iter, skb,
> > @@ -1362,7 +1386,8 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
> >                                 skb_shinfo(skb)->flags |= SKBFL_PURE_ZEROCOPY;
> >
> >                         if (!skb_zcopy_pure(skb)) {
> > -                               if (!sk_wmem_schedule(sk, copy))
> > +                               copy = tcp_wmem_schedule(sk, copy);
> > +                               if (!copy)
> >                                         goto wait_for_space;
> >                         }
> >
> > --
> > 2.36.1.476.g0c4daa206d-goog
> >