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: <84f94417e79f3c4006441a1dc6e4b6f3c669a088.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:19:54 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.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, 2023-09-12 at 19:01 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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 :/

Can be a follow-up, no need to resend the whole series, I'm applying it
now! The pw backlog is already scaring as is, I prefer the path with
less patches flying ;)

Cheers,

Paolo