netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/22] ovpn: implement basic TX path (UDP)

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, 11 Mar 2024 16:19:29 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sergey Ryazanov
 <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/22] ovpn: implement basic TX path (UDP)

Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net> writes:

> Hi Toke,
>
> On 08/03/2024 16:31, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net> writes:
>> 
>>> +/* send skb to connected peer, if any */
>>> +static void ovpn_queue_skb(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn, struct sk_buff *skb, struct ovpn_peer *peer)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if (likely(!peer))
>>> +		/* retrieve peer serving the destination IP of this packet */
>>> +		peer = ovpn_peer_lookup_by_dst(ovpn, skb);
>>> +	if (unlikely(!peer)) {
>>> +		net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: no peer to send data to\n", ovpn->dev->name);
>>> +		goto drop;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	ret = ptr_ring_produce_bh(&peer->tx_ring, skb);
>>> +	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
>>> +		net_err_ratelimited("%s: cannot queue packet to TX ring\n", peer->ovpn->dev->name);
>>> +		goto drop;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (!queue_work(ovpn->crypto_wq, &peer->encrypt_work))
>>> +		ovpn_peer_put(peer);
>>> +
>>> +	return;
>>> +drop:
>>> +	if (peer)
>>> +		ovpn_peer_put(peer);
>>> +	kfree_skb_list(skb);
>>> +}
>> 
>> So this puts packets on a per-peer 1024-packet FIFO queue with no
>> backpressure? That sounds like a pretty terrible bufferbloat situation.
>> Did you do any kind of latency-under-load testing of this, such as
>> running the RRUL test[0] through it?
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Andrew Lunn just raised a similar point about these rings being 
> potential bufferbloat pitfalls.
>
> And I totally agree.
>
> I haven't performed any specific test, but I have already seen latency 
> bumping here and there under heavy load.
>
> Andrew suggested at least reducing rings size to something like 128 and 
> then looking at BQL.
>
> Do you have any hint as to what may make sense for a first 
> implementation, balancing complexity and good results?

Hmm, I think BQL may actually be fairly straight forward to implement
for this; if you just call netdev_tx_sent_queue() when the packet has
been encrypted and sent on to the lower layer, the BQL algorithm should
keep the ring buffer occupancy just at the level it needs to be to keep
the encryption worker busy. I am not sure if there is some weird reason
this won't work for something like this, but I can't think of any off
the top of my head. And implementing this should be fairly simple (it's
just a couple of function calls in the right places). As an example, see
this commit adding it to the mvneta driver:

a29b6235560a ("net: mvneta: add BQL support")

Not sure if some additional mechanism is needed to keep a bunch of
encrypted packets from piling up in the physical device qdisc (after
encryption), but that will be in addition, in that case.

-Toke