netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: call prot->release

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: <CANn89iJs8u9HK2AYGcdxny8oC3jWGP6H-fNhm81Xcy19dUn9SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:01:46 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, 
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: call prot->release_cb() when processing backlog

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:59 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 17:05 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > __sk_flush_backlog() / sk_flush_backlog() are used
> > when TCP recvmsg()/sendmsg() process large chunks,
> > to not let packets in the backlog too long.
> >
> > It makes sense to call tcp_release_cb() to also
> > process actions held in sk->sk_tsq_flags for smoother
> > scheduling.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/sock.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index 21610e3845a5042f7c648ccb3e0d90126df20a0b..bb89b88bc1e8a042c4ee40b3c8345dc58cb1b369 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -3001,6 +3001,9 @@ void __sk_flush_backlog(struct sock *sk)
> >  {
> >       spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
> >       __release_sock(sk);
> > +
> > +     if (sk->sk_prot->release_cb)
> > +             sk->sk_prot->release_cb(sk);
>
> Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if adding an
> indirect_call_wrapper here could make any difference?
>
> I guess not much, and in any case it could be a follow-up.
>

I think it would make sense, particularly from release_sock()

We have such a change in our kernel, for some reason its author never
upstreamed it :/