netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

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: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:34:25 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, 
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@....com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, 
	Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Kaiyuan Zhang <kaiyuanz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > IMHO, we need a better UAPI to receive the tokens and give them back to
> > > the kernel. CMSG + setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED) get the job done,
> > > but look dated and hacky :-(
> > >
> > > We should either do some kind of user/kernel shared memory queue to
> > > receive/return the tokens (similar to what Jonathan was doing in his
> > > proposal?)
> >
> > I'll take a look at Jonathan's proposal, sorry, I'm not immediately
> > familiar but I wanted to respond :-) But is the suggestion here to
> > build a new kernel-user communication channel primitive for the
> > purpose of passing the information in the devmem cmsg? IMHO that seems
> > like an overkill. Why add 100-200 lines of code to the kernel to add
> > something that can already be done with existing primitives? I don't
> > see anything concretely wrong with cmsg & setsockopt approach, and if
> > we switch to something I'd prefer to switch to an existing primitive
> > for simplicity?
> >
> > The only other existing primitive to pass data outside of the linear
> > buffer is the MSG_ERRQUEUE that is used for zerocopy. Is that
> > preferred? Any other suggestions or existing primitives I'm not aware
> > of?
> >
> > > or bite the bullet and switch to io_uring.
> > >
> >
> > IMO io_uring & socket support are orthogonal, and one doesn't preclude
> > the other. As you know we like to use sockets and I believe there are
> > issues with io_uring adoption at Google that I'm not familiar with
> > (and could be wrong). I'm interested in exploring io_uring support as
> > a follow up but I think David Wei will be interested in io_uring
> > support as well anyway.
> 
> I also disagree that we need to replace a standard socket interface
> with something "faster", in quotes.
> 
> This interface is not the bottleneck to the target workload.
> 
> Replacing the synchronous sockets interface with something more
> performant for workloads where it is, is an orthogonal challenge.
> However we do that, I think that traditional sockets should continue
> to be supported.
> 
> The feature may already even work with io_uring, as both recvmsg with
> cmsg and setsockopt have io_uring support now.

I'm not really concerned with faster. I would prefer something cleaner :-)

Or maybe we should just have it documented. With some kind of path
towards beautiful world where we can create dynamic queues..