netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] macsec: introduce default_async

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: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:39:56 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Scott Dial <scott@...ttdial.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] macsec: introduce default_async_crypto sysctl

2023-08-18, 18:46:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:07:03 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > Commit ab046a5d4be4 ("net: macsec: preserve ingress frame ordering")
> > tried to solve an issue caused by MACsec's use of asynchronous crypto
> > operations, but introduced a large performance regression in cases
> > where async crypto isn't causing reordering of packets.
> > 
> > This patch introduces a per-netns sysctl that administrators can set
> > to allow new SAs to use async crypto, such as aesni. Existing SAs
> > won't be modified.
> > 
> > By setting default_async_crypto=1 and reconfiguring macsec, a single
> > netperf instance jumps from 1.4Gbps to 4.4Gbps.
> 
> Can we not fix the ordering problem?
> Queue the packets locally if they get out of order?

Actually, looking into the crypto API side, I don't see how they can
get out of order since commit 81760ea6a95a ("crypto: cryptd - Add
helpers to check whether a tfm is queued"):

    [...] ensure that no reordering is introduced because of requests
    queued in cryptd with respect to requests being processed in
    softirq context.

And cryptd_aead_queued() is used by AESNI (via simd_aead_decrypt()) to
decide whether to process the request synchronously or not.

So I really don't get what commit ab046a5d4be4 was trying to fix. I've
never been able to reproduce that issue, I guess commit 81760ea6a95a
explains why.

I'd suggest to revert commit ab046a5d4be4, but it feels wrong to
revert it without really understanding what problem Scott hit and why
81760ea6a95a didn't solve it.

What do you think?

-- 
Sabrina