netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: xsk: introduce XDP_MAX_TX

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]

Message-ID: <aFWQoXrkIWF2LnRn@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:47:29 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org,
	magnus.karlsson@...el.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
	jonathan.lemon@...il.com, sdf@...ichev.me, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	joe@...a.to, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: xsk: introduce XDP_MAX_TX_BUDGET
 set/getsockopt

On 06/21, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:25 PM Stanislav Fomichev
> <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/19, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:04:40 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> > > > @@ -424,7 +421,9 @@ bool xsk_tx_peek_desc(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, struct xdp_desc *desc)
> > > >     rcu_read_lock();
> > > >  again:
> > > >     list_for_each_entry_rcu(xs, &pool->xsk_tx_list, tx_list) {
> > > > -           if (xs->tx_budget_spent >= MAX_PER_SOCKET_BUDGET) {
> > > > +           int max_budget = READ_ONCE(xs->max_tx_budget);
> > > > +
> > > > +           if (xs->tx_budget_spent >= max_budget) {
> > > >                     budget_exhausted = true;
> > > >                     continue;
> > > >             }
> > > > @@ -779,7 +778,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *xsk_build_skb(struct xdp_sock *xs,
> > > >  static int __xsk_generic_xmit(struct sock *sk)
> > > >  {
> > > >     struct xdp_sock *xs = xdp_sk(sk);
> > > > -   u32 max_batch = TX_BATCH_SIZE;
> > > > +   u32 max_budget = READ_ONCE(xs->max_tx_budget);
> > >
> > > Hm, maybe a question to Stan / Willem & other XSK experts but are these
> > > two max values / code paths really related? Question 2 -- is generic
> > > XSK a legit optimization target, legit enough to add uAPI?
> >
> > 1) xsk_tx_peek_desc is for zc case and xsk_build_skb is copy mode;
> > whether we want to affect zc case given the fact that Jason seemingly
> > cares about copy mode is a good question.
> 
> Allow me to ask the similar question that you asked me before: even though I
> didn't see the necessity to set the max budget for zc mode (just
> because I didn't spot it happening), would it be better if we separate
> both of them because it's an uAPI interface. IIUC, if the setsockopt
> is set, we will not separate it any more in the future?
> 
> We can keep using the hardcoded value (32) in the zc mode like
> before and __only__ touch the copy mode? Later if someone or I found
> the significance of making it tunable, then another parameter of
> setsockopt can be added? Does it make sense?

Related suggestion: maybe we don't need this limit at all for the copy mode?
If the user, with a socket option, can arbitrarily change it, what is the
point of this limit? Keep it on the zc side to make sure one socket doesn't
starve the rest and drop from the copy mode.. Any reason not to do it?