netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] net/smc: Introduce IPPROTO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mat Martineau <martineau@...nel.org>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
    Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
cc: kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, 
    wintera@...ux.ibm.com, guwen@...ux.alibaba.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
    davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, 
    linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com, 
    Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] net/smc: Introduce IPPROTO_SMC

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

> Hi D.Wythe,
>
> On 07/06/2024 07:09, D. Wythe wrote:
>>
>> On 6/7/24 5:22 AM, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, D. Wythe wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>
>>>> This patch allows to create smc socket via AF_INET,
>>>> similar to the following code,
>>>>
>>>> /* create v4 smc sock */
>>>> v4 = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_SMC);
>>>>
>>>> /* create v6 smc sock */
>>>> v6 = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_SMC);
>>>>
>>>> There are several reasons why we believe it is appropriate here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. For smc sockets, it actually use IPv4 (AF-INET) or IPv6 (AF-INET6)
>>>> address. There is no AF_SMC address at all.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Create smc socket in the AF_INET(6) path, which allows us to reuse
>>>> the infrastructure of AF_INET(6) path, such as common ebpf hooks.
>>>> Otherwise, smc have to implement it again in AF_SMC path.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/uapi/linux/in.h |   2 +
>>>> net/smc/Makefile        |   2 +-
>>>> net/smc/af_smc.c        |  16 ++++-
>>>> net/smc/smc_inet.c      | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> +++++++++
>>>> net/smc/smc_inet.h      |  22 +++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_inet.c
>>>> create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_inet.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/in.h b/include/uapi/linux/in.h
>>>> index e682ab6..0c6322b 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/in.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/in.h
>>>> @@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ enum {
>>>> #define IPPROTO_RAW        IPPROTO_RAW
>>>>   IPPROTO_MPTCP = 262,        /* Multipath TCP connection */
>>>> #define IPPROTO_MPTCP        IPPROTO_MPTCP
>>>> +  IPPROTO_SMC = 263,        /* Shared Memory Communications        */
>>>> +#define IPPROTO_SMC        IPPROTO_SMC
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> It's not required to assign IPPROTO_MPTCP+1 as your new IPPROTO_SMC
>>> value. Making IPPROTO_MAX larger does increase the size of the
>>> inet_diag_table. Values from 256 to 261 are usable for IPPROTO_SMC
>>> without increasing IPPROTO_MAX.
>>>
>>> Just for background: When we added IPPROTO_MPTCP, we chose 262 because
>>> it is IPPROTO_TCP+0x100. The IANA reserved protocol numbers are 8 bits
>>> wide so we knew we would not conflict with any future additions, and
>>> in the case of MPTCP is was convenient that truncating the proto value
>>> to 8 bits would match IPPROTO_TCP.
>>>
>>> - Mat
>>>
>>
>> Hi Mat,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your feedback, I have always been curious about
>> the origins of IPPROTO_MPTCP and I am glad to
>> have learned new knowledge.
>>

Hi D. Whythe -

Sure, you're welcome!

>> Regarding the size issue of inet_diag_tables, what you said does make
>> sense. However, we still hope to continue using 263,
>> although the rationale may not be fully sufficient, as this series has
>> been under community evaluation for quite some time now,
>> and we haven't received any feedback about this value, so we’ve been
>> using it in some user-space tools ... 🙁
>>

It's definitely a tradeoff between the Linux UAPI that gets locked in 
forever vs. handling a transition with your userspace tools. If you change 
the numeric value of IPPROTO_SMC on the open source side you could 
transition internally by carrying a kernel patch that allows both the new 
and old value.

>> I would like to see what the community thinks. If everyone agrees that
>> using 263 will be completely unacceptable and a disaster,
>> then we will have no choice but to change it.
>
> It will not be a disaster, but a small waste of space (even if
> CONFIG_SMC is not set).

Well stated Matthieu :)  I chose my "not required" wording carefully, as I 
didn't want to demand a change here but to make you aware of some of the 
tradeoffs to consider. And thankfully Matthieu remembered the userspace 
issues below.

Also, I see that one of the netdev maintainers flagged this v6 series as 
"changes requested" in patchwork so that may indicate their preference?

>
> Also, please note that the introduction of IPPROTO_MPTCP caused some
> troubles in some userspace programs. That was mainly because IPPROTO_MAX
> got updated, and they didn't expect that, e.g. a quick search on GitHub
> gave me this:
>
>  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/15604
>  https://github.com/strace/strace/issues/164
>  https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/issues/1896
>
> I guess these userspace programs should now be ready for a new update,
> but still, it might be better to avoid that if there is a "simple" solution.
>
> I understand changing your userspace tools will be annoying. (On the
> other hand, it is still time to do that :) )

Agreed!


- Mat