netdev - Re: [RFC v2 6/7] virtio: in order support for virtio

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ebf4b376-6a5c-3cfa-38ab-1559ace13b27@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:44:41 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@...u.edu.cn>, eperezma@...hat.com,
        sgarzare@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 6/7] virtio: in order support for virtio_ring


在 2022/8/17 21:57, Guo Zhi 写道:
> If in order feature negotiated, we can skip the used ring to get
> buffer's desc id sequentially.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@...u.edu.cn>
> ---
>   drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 1c1b3fa376a2..143184ebb5a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,9 @@ struct vring_virtqueue {
>   			/* DMA address and size information */
>   			dma_addr_t queue_dma_addr;
>   			size_t queue_size_in_bytes;
> +
> +			/* In order feature batch begin here */


We need tweak the comment, it's not easy for me to understand the 
meaning here.


> +			u16 next_desc_begin;
>   		} split;
>   
>   		/* Available for packed ring */
> @@ -702,8 +705,13 @@ static void detach_buf_split(struct vring_virtqueue *vq, unsigned int head,
>   	}
>   
>   	vring_unmap_one_split(vq, i);
> -	vq->split.desc_extra[i].next = vq->free_head;
> -	vq->free_head = head;
> +	/* In order feature use desc in order,
> +	 * that means, the next desc will always be free
> +	 */


Maybe we should add something like "The descriptors are prepared in order".


> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(vq->vq.vdev, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER)) {
> +		vq->split.desc_extra[i].next = vq->free_head;
> +		vq->free_head = head;
> +	}
>   
>   	/* Plus final descriptor */
>   	vq->vq.num_free++;
> @@ -745,7 +753,7 @@ static void *virtqueue_get_buf_ctx_split(struct virtqueue *_vq,
>   {
>   	struct vring_virtqueue *vq = to_vvq(_vq);
>   	void *ret;
> -	unsigned int i;
> +	unsigned int i, j;
>   	u16 last_used;
>   
>   	START_USE(vq);
> @@ -764,11 +772,38 @@ static void *virtqueue_get_buf_ctx_split(struct virtqueue *_vq,
>   	/* Only get used array entries after they have been exposed by host. */
>   	virtio_rmb(vq->weak_barriers);
>   
> -	last_used = (vq->last_used_idx & (vq->split.vring.num - 1));
> -	i = virtio32_to_cpu(_vq->vdev,
> -			vq->split.vring.used->ring[last_used].id);
> -	*len = virtio32_to_cpu(_vq->vdev,
> -			vq->split.vring.used->ring[last_used].len);
> +	if (virtio_has_feature(_vq->vdev, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER)) {
> +		/* Skip used ring and get used desc in order*/
> +		i = vq->split.next_desc_begin;
> +		j = i;
> +		/* Indirect only takes one descriptor in descriptor table */
> +		while (!vq->indirect && (vq->split.desc_extra[j].flags & VRING_DESC_F_NEXT))
> +			j = (j + 1) % vq->split.vring.num;


Let's move the expensive mod outside the loop. Or it's split so we can 
use and here actually since the size is guaranteed to be power of the 
two? Another question, is it better to store the next_desc in e.g 
desc_extra?

And this seems very expensive if the device doesn't do the batching 
(which is not mandatory).


> +		/* move to next */
> +		j = (j + 1) % vq->split.vring.num;
> +		/* Next buffer will use this descriptor in order */
> +		vq->split.next_desc_begin = j;
> +		if (!vq->indirect) {
> +			*len = vq->split.desc_extra[i].len;
> +		} else {
> +			struct vring_desc *indir_desc =
> +				vq->split.desc_state[i].indir_desc;
> +			u32 indir_num = vq->split.desc_extra[i].len, buffer_len = 0;
> +
> +			if (indir_desc) {
> +				for (j = 0; j < indir_num / sizeof(struct vring_desc); j++)
> +					buffer_len += indir_desc[j].len;


So I think we need to finalize this, then we can have much more stress 
on the cache:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/10/26/1300

It was reverted since it's too aggressive, we should instead:

1) do the validation only for morden device

2) fail only when we enable the validation via (e.g a module parameter).

Thanks


> +			}
> +
> +			*len = buffer_len;
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		last_used = (vq->last_used_idx & (vq->split.vring.num - 1));
> +		i = virtio32_to_cpu(_vq->vdev,
> +				    vq->split.vring.used->ring[last_used].id);
> +		*len = virtio32_to_cpu(_vq->vdev,
> +				       vq->split.vring.used->ring[last_used].len);
> +	}
>   
>   	if (unlikely(i >= vq->split.vring.num)) {
>   		BAD_RING(vq, "id %u out of range\n", i);
> @@ -2236,6 +2271,8 @@ struct virtqueue *__vring_new_virtqueue(unsigned int index,
>   	vq->split.avail_flags_shadow = 0;
>   	vq->split.avail_idx_shadow = 0;
>   
> +	vq->split.next_desc_begin = 0;
> +
>   	/* No callback?  Tell other side not to bother us. */
>   	if (!callback) {
>   		vq->split.avail_flags_shadow |= VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT;