netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

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: <CAF=yD-+tZ7xaU0rKWBuVbfdVWptj88Z=Xf4Mqx+zaC-gZ1U1mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 20:23:28 -0600
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 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>, 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 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

> > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it
> > > > for an individual system call.
> > > > If we know that we're going to use dmabuf with the socket, maybe we
> > > > should move this flag to the socket() syscall?
> > > >
> > > > fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, SOCK_DEVMEM);
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > I think it should then be a setsockopt called before any data is
> > > exchanged, with no change of modifying mode later. We generally use
> > > setsockopts for the mode of a socket. This use of the protocol field
> > > in socket() for setting a mode would be novel. Also, it might miss
> > > passively opened connections, or be overly restrictive: one approach
> > > for all accepted child sockets.
> >
> > I was thinking this is similar to SOCK_CLOEXEC or SOCK_NONBLOCK? There
> > are plenty of bits we can grab. But setsockopt works as well!
>
> To follow up: if we have this flag on a socket, not on a per-message
> basis, can we also use recvmsg for the recycling part maybe?
>
> while (true) {
>         memset(msg, 0, ...);
>
>         /* receive the tokens */
>         ret = recvmsg(fd, &msg, 0);
>
>         /* recycle the tokens from the above recvmsg() */
>         ret = recvmsg(fd, &msg, MSG_RECYCLE);
> }
>
> recvmsg + MSG_RECYCLE can parse the same format that regular recvmsg
> exports (SO_DEVMEM_OFFSET) and we can also add extra cmsg option
> to recycle a range.
>
> Will this be more straightforward than a setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED)?
> Or is it more confusing?

It would have to be sendmsg, as recvmsg is a copy_to_user operation.

I am not aware of any precedent in multiplexing the data stream and a
control operation stream in this manner. It would also require adding
a branch in the sendmsg hot path.

The memory is associated with the socket, freed when the socket is
closed as well as on SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED. Fundamentally it is a socket
state operation, for which setsockopt is the socket interface.

Is your request purely a dislike, or is there some technical concern
with BPF and setsockopt?