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: <20240411022121.65702-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:21:21 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <krisman@...e.de>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>, <lmb@...valent.com>,
	<martin.lau@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] udp: Avoid call to compute_score on multiple sites

From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:54:30 -0400
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> >> From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
> >> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:50:47 -0400
> >> > We've observed a 7-12% performance regression in iperf3 UDP ipv4 and
> >> > ipv6 tests with multiple sockets on Zen3 cpus, which we traced back to
> >> > commit f0ea27e7bfe1 ("udp: re-score reuseport groups when connected
> >> > sockets are present").  The failing tests were those that would spawn
> >> > UDP sockets per-cpu on systems that have a high number of cpus.
> >> > 
> >> > Unsurprisingly, it is not caused by the extra re-scoring of the reused
> >> > socket, but due to the compiler no longer inlining compute_score, once
> >> > it has the extra call site in udp4_lib_lookup2.  This is augmented by
> >> > the "Safe RET" mitigation for SRSO, needed in our Zen3 cpus.
> >> > 
> >> > We could just explicitly inline it, but compute_score() is quite a large
> >> > function, around 300b.  Inlining in two sites would almost double
> >> > udp4_lib_lookup2, which is a silly thing to do just to workaround a
> >> > mitigation.  Instead, this patch shuffles the code a bit to avoid the
> >> > multiple calls to compute_score.  Since it is a static function used in
> >> > one spot, the compiler can safely fold it in, as it did before, without
> >> > increasing the text size.
> >> > 
> >> > With this patch applied I ran my original iperf3 testcases.  The failing
> >> > cases all looked like this (ipv4):
> >> > 	iperf3 -c 127.0.0.1 --udp -4 -f K -b $R -l 8920 -t 30 -i 5 -P 64 -O 2
> >> > 
> >> > where $R is either 1G/10G/0 (max, unlimited).  I ran 3 times each.
> >> > baseline is 6.9.0-rc1-g962490525cff, just a recent checkout of Linus
> >> > tree. harmean == harmonic mean; CV == coefficient of variation.
> >> > 
> >> > ipv4:
> >> >                  1G                10G                  MAX
> >> > 	    HARMEAN  (CV)      HARMEAN  (CV)    HARMEAN     (CV)
> >> > baseline 1730488.20(0.0050) 1639269.91(0.0795) 1436340.05(0.0954)
> >> > patched  1980936.14(0.0020) 1933614.06(0.0866) 1784184.51(0.0961)
> >> > 
> >> > ipv6:
> >> >                  1G                10G                  MAX
> >> > 	    HARMEAN  (CV)      HARMEAN  (CV)    HARMEAN     (CV)
> >> > baseline  1679016.07(0.0053) 1697504.56(0.0064) 1481432.74(0.0840)
> >> > patched   1924003.38(0.0153) 1852277.31(0.0457) 1690991.46(0.1848)
> >> > 
> >> > This restores the performance we had before the change above with this
> >> > benchmark.  We obviously don't expect any real impact when mitigations
> >> > are disabled, but just to be sure it also doesn't regresses:
> >> > 
> >> > mitigations=off ipv4:
> >> >                  1G                10G                  MAX
> >> > 	    HARMEAN  (CV)      HARMEAN  (CV)    HARMEAN     (CV)
> >> > baseline 3230279.97(0.0066) 3229320.91(0.0060) 2605693.19(0.0697)
> >> > patched  3242802.36(0.0073) 3239310.71(0.0035) 2502427.19(0.0882)
> >> > 
> >> > Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>
> >> > Fixes: f0ea27e7bfe1 ("udp: re-score reuseport groups when connected sockets are present")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
> >> > 
> >> > ---
> >> > Changes since v1:
> >> > (me)
> >> >   - recollected performance data after changes below only for the
> >> >   mitigations enabled case.
> >> > (suggested by Willem de Bruijn)
> >> >   - Drop __always_inline in compute_score
> >> >   - Simplify logic by replacing third struct sock pointer with bool
> >> >   - Fix typo in commit message
> >> >   - Don't explicitly break out of loop after rescore
> >> > ---
> >> >  net/ipv4/udp.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> >> >  net/ipv6/udp.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> >> >  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> > 
> >> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> >> > index 661d0e0d273f..a13ef8e06093 100644
> >> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> >> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> >> > @@ -427,12 +427,15 @@ static struct sock *udp4_lib_lookup2(struct net *net,
> >> >  {
> >> >  	struct sock *sk, *result;
> >> >  	int score, badness;
> >> > +	bool rescore = false;
> >> 
> >> nit: Keep reverse xmax tree order.
> >> https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html#local-variable-ordering-reverse-xmas-tree-rcs
> >> 
> >> >  
> >> >  	result = NULL;
> >> >  	badness = 0;
> >> >  	udp_portaddr_for_each_entry_rcu(sk, &hslot2->head) {
> >> > -		score = compute_score(sk, net, saddr, sport,
> >> > -				      daddr, hnum, dif, sdif);
> >> > +rescore:
> >> > +		score = compute_score((rescore ? result : sk), net, saddr,
> >> 
> >> I guess () is not needed around rescore ?
> >> 
> >> Both same for IPv6.
> >> 
> >> Otherwise, looks good to me.
> >> 
> >> Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
> >
> > Can we avoid using the same name for the label and boolean?
> >
> > And since if looping result will have state TCP_ESTABLISHED, can it
> > just be
> >
> >     sk = result;
> >     goto rescore;
> 
> This would be much simpler, sure.  I actually didn't want to do it
> because sk is the iteration cursor, and I couldn't prove to myself it is
> safe to skip through part of the list (assuming result isn't the
> immediate next socket in the list).

Good point, this is not safe actually.

Let's say sockets on the same port are placed in these order in the list:

  1. TCP_CLOSE sk w/ SO_INCOMING_CPU _not_ matching the current CPU
  2. TCP_ESTABLISHED sk matching 4-tuple
  3. TCP_CLOSE sk w/ SO_INCOMING_CPU matching the current CPU

When we check the first socket, we'll get the 3rd socket as it matches
the current CPU ID and TCP_ESTABLISHED cannot be selected without BPF,
and `sk = result;` skips the 2nd socket, which should have been selected.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ