| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9e0f5d24-968c-4356-a243-62f972a17570@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:47:20 -0700
From: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@...edance.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: edumazet@...gle.com, cong.wang@...edance.com, xiaochun.lu@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] sock: add MSG_ZEROCOPY
notification mechanism based on msg_control
On 5/12/24 5:58 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> zijianzhang@ wrote:
>> From: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@...edance.com>
>>
>> The MSG_ZEROCOPY flag enables copy avoidance for socket send calls.
>> However, zerocopy is not a free lunch. Apart from the management of user
>> pages, the combination of poll + recvmsg to receive notifications incurs
>> unignorable overhead in the applications. The overhead of such sometimes
>> might be more than the CPU savings from zerocopy. We try to solve this
>> problem with a new notification mechanism based on msgcontrol.
>> This new mechanism aims to reduce the overhead associated with receiving
>> notifications by embedding them directly into user arguments passed with
>> each sendmsg control message. By doing so, we can significantly reduce
>> the complexity and overhead for managing notifications. In an ideal
>> pattern, the user will keep calling sendmsg with SCM_ZC_NOTIFICATION
>> msg_control, and the notification will be delivered as soon as possible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@...edance.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaochun Lu <xiaochun.lu@...edance.com>
>
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> +
>> /*
>> * Desired design of maximum size and alignment (see RFC2553)
>> */
>> @@ -35,4 +37,12 @@ struct __kernel_sockaddr_storage {
>> #define SOCK_TXREHASH_DISABLED 0
>> #define SOCK_TXREHASH_ENABLED 1
>>
>> +#define SOCK_ZC_INFO_MAX 128
>> +
>> +struct zc_info_elem {
>> + __u32 lo;
>> + __u32 hi;
>> + __u8 zerocopy;
>> +};
>> +
>> #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_SOCKET_H */
>> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
>> index 8d6e638b5426..15da609be026 100644
>> --- a/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -2842,6 +2842,74 @@ int __sock_cmsg_send(struct sock *sk, struct cmsghdr *cmsg,
>> case SCM_RIGHTS:
>> case SCM_CREDENTIALS:
>> break;
>> + case SCM_ZC_NOTIFICATION: {
>> + int ret, i = 0;
>> + int cmsg_data_len, zc_info_elem_num;
>> + void __user *usr_addr;
>> + struct zc_info_elem zc_info_kern[SOCK_ZC_INFO_MAX];
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + struct sk_buff_head *q, local_q;
>> + struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp;
>> + struct sock_exterr_skb *serr;
>
> minor: reverse xmas tree
>
Ack.
>> +
>> + if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY) || sk->sk_family == PF_RDS)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Is this mechanism supported for PF_RDS?
> The next patch fails on PF_RDS + '-n'
>
Nice catch! This mechanism does not support PF_RDS, I will update the
selftest code.
>> +
>> + cmsg_data_len = cmsg->cmsg_len - sizeof(struct cmsghdr);
>> + if (cmsg_data_len % sizeof(struct zc_info_elem))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + zc_info_elem_num = cmsg_data_len / sizeof(struct zc_info_elem);
>> + if (!zc_info_elem_num || zc_info_elem_num > SOCK_ZC_INFO_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (in_compat_syscall())
>> + usr_addr = compat_ptr(*(compat_uptr_t *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg));
>> + else
>> + usr_addr = (void __user *)*(void **)CMSG_DATA(cmsg);
>
> The main design issue with this series is this indirection, rather
> than passing the array of notifications as cmsg.
>
> This trick circumvents having to deal with compat issues and having to
> figure out copy_to_user in ____sys_sendmsg (as msg_control is an
> in-kernel copy).
>
> This is quite hacky, from an API design PoV.
>
> As is passing a pointer, but expecting msg_controllen to hold the
> length not of the pointer, but of the pointed to user buffer.
>
> I had also hoped for more significant savings. Especially with the
> higher syscall overhead due to meltdown and spectre mitigations vs
> when MSG_ZEROCOPY was introduced and I last tried this optimization.
>
Thanks for the summary, totally agree! It's a hard choice to design the
API like this.
>> + if (!access_ok(usr_addr, cmsg_data_len))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + q = &sk->sk_error_queue;
>> + skb_queue_head_init(&local_q);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>> + skb = skb_peek(q);
>> + while (skb && i < zc_info_elem_num) {
>> + struct sk_buff *skb_next = skb_peek_next(skb, q);
>> +
>> + serr = SKB_EXT_ERR(skb);
>> + if (serr->ee.ee_errno == 0 &&
>> + serr->ee.ee_origin == SO_EE_ORIGIN_ZEROCOPY) {
>> + zc_info_kern[i].hi = serr->ee.ee_data;
>> + zc_info_kern[i].lo = serr->ee.ee_info;
>> + zc_info_kern[i].zerocopy = !(serr->ee.ee_code
>> + & SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED);
>> + __skb_unlink(skb, q);
>> + __skb_queue_tail(&local_q, skb);
>> + i++;
>> + }
>> + skb = skb_next;
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + ret = copy_to_user(usr_addr,
>> + zc_info_kern,
>> + i * sizeof(struct zc_info_elem));
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>> + skb_queue_reverse_walk_safe(&local_q, skb, tmp) {
>> + __skb_unlink(skb, &local_q);
>> + __skb_queue_head(q, skb);
>> + }
>
> Can just list_splice_init?
>
Ack.
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + }
>> +
>> + while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&local_q)))
>> + consume_skb(skb);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> default:
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists