netdev - Re: [PATCH] skbuff: Improve the sending efficiency of __skb_send

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: <20250626075020.95425-1-yangfeng59949@163.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 15:50:20 +0800
From: Feng Yang <yangfeng59949@....com>
To: stfomichev@...il.com
Cc: aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
	almasrymina@...gle.com,
	asml.silence@...il.com,
	davem@...emloft.net,
	ebiggers@...gle.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	horms@...nel.org,
	kerneljasonxing@...il.com,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	willemb@...gle.com,
	yangfeng59949@....com,
	yangfeng@...inos.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skbuff: Improve the sending efficiency of __skb_send_sock

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:35:55 -0700, Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:

> On 06/23, Feng Yang wrote:
> > From: Feng Yang <yangfeng@...inos.cn>
> > 
> > By aggregating skb data into a bvec array for transmission, when using sockmap to forward large packets,
> > what previously required multiple transmissions now only needs a single transmission, which significantly enhances performance.
> > For small packets, the performance remains comparable to the original level.
> > 
> > When using sockmap for forwarding, the average latency for different packet sizes
> > after sending 10,000 packets is as follows:
> > size	old(us)		new(us)
> > 512	56		55
> > 1472	58		58
> > 1600	106		79
> > 3000	145		108
> > 5000	182		123
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Yang <yangfeng@...inos.cn>
> > ---
> >  net/core/skbuff.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > index 85fc82f72d26..664443fc9baf 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -3235,84 +3235,75 @@ typedef int (*sendmsg_func)(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg);
> >  static int __skb_send_sock(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int offset,
> >  			   int len, sendmsg_func sendmsg, int flags)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned int orig_len = len;
> >  	struct sk_buff *head = skb;
> >  	unsigned short fragidx;
> > -	int slen, ret;
> > +	struct msghdr msg;
> > +	struct bio_vec *bvec;
> > +	int max_vecs, ret, slen;
> > +	int bvec_count = 0;
> > +	unsigned int copied = 0;
> >  
> > -do_frag_list:
> > -
> > -	/* Deal with head data */
> > -	while (offset < skb_headlen(skb) && len) {
> > -		struct kvec kv;
> > -		struct msghdr msg;
> > -
> > -		slen = min_t(int, len, skb_headlen(skb) - offset);
> > -		kv.iov_base = skb->data + offset;
> > -		kv.iov_len = slen;
> > -		memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
> > -		msg.msg_flags = MSG_DONTWAIT | flags;
> > -
> > -		iov_iter_kvec(&msg.msg_iter, ITER_SOURCE, &kv, 1, slen);
> > -		ret = INDIRECT_CALL_2(sendmsg, sendmsg_locked,
> > -				      sendmsg_unlocked, sk, &msg);
> > -		if (ret <= 0)
> > -			goto error;
> > +	max_vecs = skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags + 1; // +1 for linear data
> > +	if (skb_has_frag_list(skb)) {
> > +		struct sk_buff *frag_skb = skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list;
> >  
> > -		offset += ret;
> > -		len -= ret;
> > +		while (frag_skb) {
> > +			max_vecs += skb_shinfo(frag_skb)->nr_frags + 1; // +1 for linear data
> > +			frag_skb = frag_skb->next;
> > +		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/* All the data was skb head? */
> > -	if (!len)
> > -		goto out;
> > +	bvec = kcalloc(max_vecs, sizeof(struct bio_vec), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!bvec)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Not sure allocating memory here is a good idea. From what I can tell
> this function is used by non-sockmap callers as well..

Alternatively, we can use struct bio_vec bvec[size] to avoid memory allocation.
Even if the "size" is insufficient, the unsent portion will be transmitted in the next call to `__skb_send_sock`.

Here we just merge them and send together. The other invocations of this function should still be able to send normally.