netdev - Re: IORING_CQE_F

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, 19 Oct 2022 16:06:50 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dylan Yudaken <dylany@...com>
Subject: Re: IORING_CQE_F_COPIED

On 10/18/22 09:43, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> 
>> On 10/14/22 12:06, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> In the tests I made I used this version of IORING_CQE_F_COPIED:
>>> https://git.samba.org/?p=metze/linux/wip.git;a=commitdiff;h=645d3b584c417a247d92d71baa6266a5f3d0d17d
>>> (also inlined at the end)
>>>
>>> Would that something we want for 6.1? (Should I post that with a useful commit message, after doing some more tests)
>>
>> I was thinking, can it be delivered separately but not in the same cqe?
>> The intention is to keep it off the IO path. For example, it can emit a
>> zc status CQE or maybe keep a "zc failed" counter inside the ring. Other
>> options? And we can add a separate callback for that, will make a couple
>> of things better.
>>
>> What do you think? Especially from the userspace usability perspective.
> 
> So far I can't think of any other way that would be useful yet,
> but that doesn't mean something else might exist...
> 
> IORING_CQE_F_COPIED is available per request and makes it possible
> to judge why the related SENDMSG_ZC was fast or not.
> It's also available in trace-cmd report.
> 
> Everything else would likely re-introduce similar complexity like we
> had with the notif slots.
> 
> Instead of a new IORING_CQE_F_COPIED flag we could also set
> cqe.res = SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED, but that isn't really different.
> 
> As I basically use the same logic that's used to generate SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED
> for the native MSG_ZEROCOPY, I don't see the problem with IORING_CQE_F_COPIED.
> Can you be more verbose why you're thinking about something different?

Because it feels like something that should be done roughly once and in
advance. Performance wise, I agree that a bunch of extra instructions in
the (io_uring) IO path won't make difference as the net overhead is
already high, but I still prefer to keep it thin. The complexity is a
good point though, if only we could piggy back it onto MSG_PROBE.
Ok, let's do IORING_CQE_F_COPIED and aim 6.2 + possibly backport.

First, there is no more ubuf_info::zerocopy, see for-next, but you can
grab space in io_kiocb, io_kiocb::iopoll_completed is a good candidate.
You would want to take one io_uring patch I'm going to send (will CC
you), with that you won't need to change anything in net/. And the last
bit, let's make the zc probing conditional under IORING_RECVSEND_* flag,
I'll make it zero overhead when not set later by replacing the callback.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov