RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun
From: Jon Rosen (jrosen)
Date: Wed May 23 2018 - 10:36:38 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Willem de Bruijn [mailto:willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:37 AM
> To: Jon Rosen (jrosen) <jrosen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx>; Rosen,
> Rami <rami.rosen@xxxxxxxxx>; Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx>; Mike Maloney
> <maloney@xxxxxxxxxx>; Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@xxxxxxxx>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Greg
> Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL] <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> open list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Jon Rosen (jrosen) <jrosen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > For the ring, there is no requirement to allocate exactly the amount
> >> > specified by the user request. Safer than relying on shared memory
> >> > and simpler than the extra allocation in this patch would be to allocate
> >> > extra shadow memory at the end of the ring (and not mmap that).
> >> >
> >> > That still leaves an extra cold cacheline vs using tp_padding.
> >> Given my lack of experience and knowledge in writing kernel code
> >> it was easier for me to allocate the shadow ring as a separate
> >> structure. Of course it's not about me and my skills so if it's
> >> more appropriate to allocate at the tail of the existing ring
> >> then certainly I can look at doing that.
> > The memory for the ring is not one contiguous block, it's an array of
> > blocks of pages (or 'order' sized blocks of pages). I don't think
> > increasing the size of each of the blocks to provided storage would be
> > such a good idea as it will risk spilling over into the next order and
> > wasting lots of memory. I suspect it's also more complex than a single
> > shadow ring to do both the allocation and the access.
> > It could be tacked onto the end of the pg_vec used to store the
> > pointers to the blocks. The challenge with that is that a pg_vec is
> > created for each of RX and TX rings so either it would have to
> > allocate unnecessary storage for TX or the caller will have to say if
> > extra space should be allocated or not. E.g.:
> > static struct pgv *alloc_pg_vec(struct tpacket_req *req, int order, int scratch, void **scratch_p)
> > I'm not sure avoiding the extra allocation and moving it to the
> > pg_vec for the RX ring is going to get the simplification you were
> > hoping for. Is there another way of storing the shadow ring which
> > I should consider?
> I did indeed mean attaching extra pages to pg_vec. It should be
> simpler than a separate structure, but I may be wrong.
I don't think it would be too bad, it may actually turn out to be
convenient to implement.
> Either way, I still would prefer to avoid the shadow buffer completely.
> It incurs complexity and cycle cost on all users because of only the
> rare (non-existent?) consumer that overwrites the padding bytes.
I prefer that as well. I'm just not sure there is a bulletproof
solution without the shadow state. I also wish it were only a
theoretical issue but unfortunately it is actually something our
customers have seen.
> Perhaps we can use padding yet avoid deadlock by writing a
> timed value. The simplest would be jiffies >> N. Then only a
> process that writes this exact value would be subject to drops and
> then still only for a limited period.
> Instead of depending on wall clock time, like jiffies, another option
> would be to keep a percpu array of values. Each cpu has a zero
> entry if it is not writing, nonzero if it is. If a writer encounters a
> number in padding that is > num_cpus, then the state is garbage
> from userspace. If <= num_cpus, it is adhered to only until that cpu
> clears its entry, which is guaranteed to happen eventually.
> Just a quick thought. This might not fly at all upon closer scrutiny.
I'm not sure I understand the suggestion, but I'll think on it
Some other options maybe worth considering (in no specific order):
- test the application to see if it will consume entries if tp_status
is set to anything other than TP_STATUS_USER, only use shadow if
it doesn't strictly honor the TP_STATUS_USER bit.
- skip shadow if we see new TP_STATUS_USER_TO_KERNEL is used
- use tp_len == -1 to indicate inuse