netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] net: implement the QUIC protocol in linux kernel

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: <ZuThZdPILnCKpOmO@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 18:05:41 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc: network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Moritz Buhl <mbuhl@...nbsd.org>,
	Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli@...hat.com>,
	Pengtao He <hepengtao@...omi.com>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
	Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
	kernel-tls-handshake@...ts.linux.dev,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Steve Dickson <steved@...hat.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
	Daniel Stenberg <daniel@...x.se>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] net: implement the QUIC protocol in linux
 kernel

On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 10:30:15PM -0400, Xin Long wrote:
> 4. Performance testing via iperf
> 
>   The performance testing was conducted using iperf [5] over a 100G
>   physical NIC, evaluating various packet sizes and MTUs:
>   
>   - QUIC vs. kTLS:
>   
>     UNIT        size:1024      size:4096      size:16384     size:65536
>     Gbits/sec   QUIC | kTLS    QUIC | kTLS    QUIC | kTLS    QUIC | kTLS
>     ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
>     mtu:1500    1.67 | 2.16    3.04 | 5.04    3.49 | 7.84    3.83 | 7.95
>     ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
>     mtu:9000    2.17 | 2.41    5.47 | 6.19    6.45 | 8.66    7.48 | 8.90
>   
>   - QUIC(disable_1rtt_encryption) vs. TCP:
>   
>     UNIT        size:1024      size:4096      size:16384     size:65536
>     Gbits/sec   QUIC | TCP     QUIC | TCP     QUIC | TCP     QUIC | TCP
>     ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
>     mtu:1500    2.17 | 2.49    3.59 | 8.36    6.09 | 15.1    6.92 | 16.2
>     ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
>     mtu:9000    2.47 | 2.54    7.66 | 7.97    14.7 | 20.3    19.1 | 31.3
>   
>   
>   The performance gap between QUIC and kTLS may be attributed to:
> 
>   - The absence of Generic Segmentation Offload (GSO) for QUIC.
>   - An additional data copy on the transmission (TX) path.
>   - Extra encryption required for header protection in QUIC.
>   - A longer header length for the stream data in QUIC.
> 

This is not appealing.

However, I can offer you one more possible advantage of in-kernel QUIC.
You can think about adding iouring support for QUIC socket, because that
could possibly chain the socket fastpath operations together which opens
the door for more optimization.

Just my two cents.

Thanks!