[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlXtyn2Sgk_W8h92@hog>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 16:44:26 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 14/24] ovpn: implement multi-peer support
Hi Antonio, I took a little break but I'm looking at your patches
again now.
2024-05-06, 03:16:27 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h b/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h
> index 7414c2459fb9..58166fdeac63 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h
> @@ -31,6 +35,12 @@ struct ovpn_struct {
> spinlock_t lock; /* protect writing to the ovpn_struct object */
> struct workqueue_struct *crypto_wq;
> struct workqueue_struct *events_wq;
> + struct {
> + DECLARE_HASHTABLE(by_id, 12);
> + DECLARE_HASHTABLE(by_transp_addr, 12);
> + DECLARE_HASHTABLE(by_vpn_addr, 12);
Those are really big. I guess for large servers they make sense, but
you're making clients hold 98kB in memory that they're not going to use.
Maybe they could be dynamically sized, but I think struct peers should
be allocated on demand (only for mode == MP) if you want this size.
> + spinlock_t lock; /* protects writes to peers tables */
> + } peers;
> struct ovpn_peer __rcu *peer;
> struct list_head dev_list;
> };
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
> index 99a2ae42a332..38a89595dade 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
> @@ -361,6 +362,91 @@ struct ovpn_peer *ovpn_peer_get_by_src(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn,
> return peer;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * ovpn_peer_add_mp - add per to related tables in a MP instance
^
s/per/peer/
> + * @ovpn: the instance to add the peer to
> + * @peer: the peer to add
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success or a negative error code otherwise
> + */
> +static int ovpn_peer_add_mp(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn, struct ovpn_peer *peer)
> +{
[...]
> + index = ovpn_peer_index(ovpn->peers.by_id, &peer->id, sizeof(peer->id));
> + hlist_add_head_rcu(&peer->hash_entry_id, &ovpn->peers.by_id[index]);
> +
> + if (peer->vpn_addrs.ipv4.s_addr != htonl(INADDR_ANY)) {
> + index = ovpn_peer_index(ovpn->peers.by_vpn_addr,
> + &peer->vpn_addrs.ipv4,
> + sizeof(peer->vpn_addrs.ipv4));
> + hlist_add_head_rcu(&peer->hash_entry_addr4,
> + &ovpn->peers.by_vpn_addr[index]);
> + }
> +
> + hlist_del_init_rcu(&peer->hash_entry_addr6);
Why are hash_entry_transp_addr and hash_entry_addr6 getting a
hlist_del_init_rcu() call, but not hash_entry_id and hash_entry_addr4?
> + if (memcmp(&peer->vpn_addrs.ipv6, &in6addr_any,
> + sizeof(peer->vpn_addrs.ipv6))) {
!ipv6_addr_any(&peer->vpn_addrs.ipv6)
> + index = ovpn_peer_index(ovpn->peers.by_vpn_addr,
> + &peer->vpn_addrs.ipv6,
> + sizeof(peer->vpn_addrs.ipv6));
> + hlist_add_head_rcu(&peer->hash_entry_addr6,
> + &ovpn->peers.by_vpn_addr[index]);
> + }
> +
--
Sabrina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists