netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: add dedicated kmem

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: <db71bb74eb61fa09226ef5f2071747f35d67df82.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 03 Feb 2023 08:59:31 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: add dedicated kmem_cache for
 typical/small skb->head

On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 18:58 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Note: after Kees Cook patches and this one, we might
> be able to revert commit
> dbae2b062824 ("net: skb: introduce and use a single page frag cache")
> because GRO_MAX_HEAD is also small.

I guess I'll need some time to do the relevant benchmarks, but I'm not
able to schedule them very soon.

> @@ -486,6 +499,21 @@ static void *kmalloc_reserve(unsigned int *size, gfp_t flags, int node,
>  	void *obj;
>  
>  	obj_size = SKB_HEAD_ALIGN(*size);
> +	if (obj_size <= SKB_SMALL_HEAD_CACHE_SIZE &&
> +	    !(flags & KMALLOC_NOT_NORMAL_BITS)) {
> +
> +		/* skb_small_head_cache has non power of two size,
> +		 * likely forcing SLUB to use order-3 pages.
> +		 * We deliberately attempt a NOMEMALLOC allocation only.
> +		 */
> +		obj = kmem_cache_alloc_node(skb_small_head_cache,
> +				flags | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN,
> +				node);
> +		if (obj) {
> +			*size = SKB_SMALL_HEAD_CACHE_SIZE;
> +			goto out;
> +		}

In case kmem allocation failure, should we try to skip the 2nd 
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC attempt below?

I *think* non power of two size is also required to avoid an issue
plain (no GFP_DMA nor __GFP_ACCOUNT) allocations in case of fallback to
kmalloc(), to prevent skb_kfree_head() mis-interpreting skb->head as
kmem_cache allocated.

Thanks!

Paolo