netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] add more drop reasons in tcp receive path

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: <CAL+tcoDtiQJFuoeCUv3KMy5q8wU2jYoGRuaNJQrk5WdwHFnXNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 21:25:10 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] add more drop reasons in tcp receive path

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:22 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:24 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 6:46 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > >
> > > When I was debugging the reason about why the skb should be dropped in
> > > syn cookie mode, I found out that this NOT_SPECIFIED reason is too
> > > general. Thus I decided to refine it.
> >
> > Hello, any suggestions? Those names in the patchset could be improper,
> > but I've already tried to name them in English :S
> >
>
> Adding &drop_reason parameters all over the places adds more code for
> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y builds,
> because of added canary checks.

Indeed.

It took me some while to consider whether I should add more reasons
into the fast path.

But for now the NOT_SPECIFIED fake reason does not work if we really
want to know some useful hints.
What do you think? Should I give up this patch series or come up with
other better ideas?

>
> Please make sure not to slow down the TCP fast path, while we work
> hard in the opposite direction.

I tested some times by using netperf, it's not that easy to observe
the obvious differences before/after this patch applied.

>
> Also, sending patch series over weekends increases the chance for them
> being lost, just my personal opinion...

Oh, I see :S

Thanks,
Jason

>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> >
> > >
> > > Jason Xing (2):
> > >   tcp: add more DROP REASONs in cookie check
> > >   tcp: add more DROP REASONS in child process
> > >
> > >  include/net/dropreason-core.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/net/tcp.h             |  8 +++++---
> > >  net/ipv4/syncookies.c         | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> > >  net/ipv4/tcp_input.c          | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> > >  net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c           | 13 +++++++------
> > >  net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c      |  4 ++--
> > >  net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c           |  6 +++---
> > >  7 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.37.3
> > >