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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230501061401-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 06:20:52 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com> Cc: "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com" <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net 2/3] virtio-net: allow usage of vrings smaller than MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2 On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 06:54:08PM +0000, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > > > At the moment, if a network device uses vrings with less than > > > MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2 entries, the device won't be functional. > > > > > > The following condition vq->num_free >= 2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS will always > > > evaluate to false, leading to TX timeouts. > > > > > > This patch introduces a new variable, single_pkt_max_descs, that holds > > > the max number of descriptors we may need to handle a single packet. > > > > > > This patch also detects the small vring during probe, blocks some > > > features that can't be used with small vrings, and fails probe, > > > leading to a reset and features re-negotiation. > > > > > > Features that can't be used with small vrings: > > > GRO features (VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_*): > > > When we use small vrings, we may not have enough entries in the ring to > > > chain page size buffers and form a 64K buffer. > > > So we may need to allocate 64k of continuous memory, which may be too > > > much when the system is stressed. > > > > > > This patch also fixes the MTU size in small vring cases to be up to the > > > default one, 1500B. > > > > and then it should clear VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? > > > > Following [1], I was thinking to accept the feature and a let the device figure out that it can't transmit a big packet, since the RX buffers are not big enough (without VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF). > But, I think that we may need to block the MTU feature after all. > Quoting the spec: > > A driver SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU if the device offers it. > If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, it MUST supply enough receive buffers to receive at least one receive packet of size mtu (plus low level ethernet header length) with gso_type NONE or ECN. > > So, if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is negotiated, we MUST supply enough receive buffers. > So I think that blocking VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU should be the way to go, If mtu > 1500. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230417031052-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org/ First up to 4k should not be a problem. Even jumbo frames e.g. 9k is highly likely to succeed. And a probe time which is often boot even 64k isn't a problem ... Hmm. We could allocate large buffers at probe time. Reuse them and copy data over. IOW reusing GOOD_COPY_LEN flow for this case. Not yet sure how I feel about this. OTOH it removes the need for the whole feature blocking approach, does it not? WDYT? > > > + /* How many ring descriptors we may need to transmit a single packet */ > > > + u16 single_pkt_max_descs; > > > + > > > + /* Do we have virtqueues with small vrings? */ > > > + bool svring; > > > + > > > /* CPU hotplug instances for online & dead */ > > > struct hlist_node node; > > > struct hlist_node node_dead; > > > > worth checking that all these layout changes don't push useful things to > > a different cache line. can you add that analysis? > > > > Good point. > I think that we can just move these to the bottom of the struct. > > > > > I see confusiong here wrt whether some rings are "small"? all of them? > > some rx rings? some tx rings? names should make it clear. > > The small vring is a device attribute, not a vq attribute. It blocks features, which affects the entire device. > Maybe we can call it "small vring mode". > > > also do we really need bool svring? can't we just check single_pkt_max_descs > > all the time? > > > > We can work without the bool, we could always check if single_pkt_max_descs != MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2. > It doesn't really matter to me, I was thinking it may be more readable this way. > > > > +static bool virtnet_uses_svring(struct virtnet_info *vi) > > > +{ > > > + u32 i; > > > + > > > + /* If a transmit/receive virtqueue is small, > > > + * we cannot handle fragmented packets. > > > + */ > > > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) { > > > + if (IS_SMALL_VRING(virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->sq[i].vq)) || > > > + IS_SMALL_VRING(virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->rq[i].vq))) > > > + return true; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return false; > > > +} > > > > I see even if only some rings are too small we force everything to use > > small ones. Wouldn't it be better to just disable small ones in this > > case? That would not need a reset. > > > > I'm not sure. It may complicate things. > > What if all TX vqs are small? > What if all RX vqs are small? > What if we end up with an unbalanced number of TX vqs and RX vqs? is this allowed by the spec? > What if we end up disabling the RX default vq (receiveq1)? > > I guess we could do it, after checking some conditions. > Maybe we can do it in a follow up patch? > Do you think it's important for it to be included since day 1? > > I think that the question is: what's more important, to use all the vqs while blocking some features, or to use part of the vqs without blocking features? > > > > + > > > +/* Function returns the number of features it blocked */ > > > > We don't need the # though. Make it bool? > > > > Sure. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists