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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADvbK_e0m=kWyJJMWMf_-9bg_OS9aBnsyuRSXpOc6DzZbS2gZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:32:47 -0400
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...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 Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I haven't had the chance to try io_uring. From what I understand, it
doesn’t require any changes to the protocol stack (Linux QUIC doesn’t
support MSG_ZEROCOPY at this time).

Thanks for offering this suggestion, it sounds worth exploring when
using the QUIC socket in the future.

Thanks.