netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/20] io_uring: add interface queue

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: <65783fb3-5209-45a3-a4bf-7b3b7acaa75e@davidwei.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:44:02 -0800
From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/20] io_uring: add interface queue

On 2023-12-20 08:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/19/23 2:03 PM, David Wei wrote:
>> @@ -750,6 +753,54 @@ enum {
>>  	SOCKET_URING_OP_SETSOCKOPT,
>>  };
>>  
>> +struct io_uring_rbuf_rqe {
>> +	__u32	off;
>> +	__u32	len;
>> +	__u16	region;
>> +	__u8	__pad[6];
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct io_uring_rbuf_cqe {
>> +	__u32	off;
>> +	__u32	len;
>> +	__u16	region;
>> +	__u8	sock;
>> +	__u8	flags;
>> +	__u8	__pad[2];
>> +};
> 
> Looks like this leaves a gap? Should be __pad[4] or probably just __u32
> __pad; For all of these, definitely worth thinking about if we'll ever
> need more than the slight padding. Might not hurt to always leave 8
> bytes extra, outside of the required padding.

Apologies, it's been a while since I last pahole'd these structs. We may
have added more fields later and reintroduced gaps.

> 
>> +struct io_rbuf_rqring_offsets {
>> +	__u32	head;
>> +	__u32	tail;
>> +	__u32	rqes;
>> +	__u8	__pad[4];
>> +};
> 
> Ditto here, __u32 __pad;
> 
>> +struct io_rbuf_cqring_offsets {
>> +	__u32	head;
>> +	__u32	tail;
>> +	__u32	cqes;
>> +	__u8	__pad[4];
>> +};
> 
> And here.
> 
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Argument for IORING_REGISTER_ZC_RX_IFQ
>> + */
>> +struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg {
>> +	__u32	if_idx;
>> +	/* hw rx descriptor ring id */
>> +	__u32	if_rxq_id;
>> +	__u32	region_id;
>> +	__u32	rq_entries;
>> +	__u32	cq_entries;
>> +	__u32	flags;
>> +	__u16	cpu;
>> +
>> +	__u32	mmap_sz;
>> +	struct io_rbuf_rqring_offsets rq_off;
>> +	struct io_rbuf_cqring_offsets cq_off;
>> +};
> 
> You have rq_off starting at a 48-bit offset here, don't think this is
> going to work as it's uapi. You'd need padding to align it to 64-bits.

I will remove the io_rbuf_cqring in a future patchset which should
simplify things, but io_rbuf_rqring will stay. I'll make sure offsets
are 64-bit aligned.

> 
>> diff --git a/io_uring/zc_rx.c b/io_uring/zc_rx.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5fc94cad5e3a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/io_uring/zc_rx.c
>> +int io_register_zc_rx_ifq(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>> +			  struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg __user *arg)
>> +{
>> +	struct io_uring_zc_rx_ifq_reg reg;
>> +	struct io_zc_rx_ifq *ifq;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	if (copy_from_user(&reg, arg, sizeof(reg)))
>> +		return -EFAULT;
>> +	if (ctx->ifq)
>> +		return -EBUSY;
>> +	if (reg.if_rxq_id == -1)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	ifq = io_zc_rx_ifq_alloc(ctx);
>> +	if (!ifq)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	/* TODO: initialise network interface */
>> +
>> +	ret = io_allocate_rbuf_ring(ifq, &reg);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto err;
>> +
>> +	/* TODO: map zc region and initialise zc pool */
>> +
>> +	ifq->rq_entries = reg.rq_entries;
>> +	ifq->cq_entries = reg.cq_entries;
>> +	ifq->if_rxq_id = reg.if_rxq_id;
>> +	ctx->ifq = ifq;
> 
> As these TODO's are removed in later patches, I think you should just
> not include them to begin with. It reads more like notes to yourself,
> doesn't really add anything to the series.

Got it, will remove them.

> 
>> +void io_shutdown_zc_rx_ifqs(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);
>> +}
> 
> This is a bit odd?
>