netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: introduce shadow sockets for fallback connections

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: <c7434855-b569-4e10-fd19-7f7d525cad7f@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:21:48 +0800
From:   Kai <KaiShen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: introduce shadow sockets for fallback
 connections

On 3/22/23 9:08 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 
> It looks like only the shadow sockets' receive queue is needed/used.
> 
> Have you considered instead adding 2 receive queues to smc_sock, and
> implement a custom accept() variant fetching the accepted sockets from
> there?
> 
> That will allow better encapsulating the changes into the smc code and
> will avoid creating that 2 non-listening but almost listening sockets
> which look quite strange.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paolo

I am not so sure about this two sockets implementation but Here are my
concerns:
1. When I tried to implement a custom accept, I found the function.
mem_cgroup_charge_skmem is not exported and SMC-R couldn't access it as
a module. If there are more functions like this in future updates this
could be a problem.
3. The custom accept should synchronize with future updates of TCP
accept.
2. SMC-R is trying to behave like TCP and if we implement custom accept,
there may be repeated code and looks not good.

Thanks,

Kai