Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] sk_buff: optimize layout for GRO
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 20:51:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210724185141.GJ9904@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhT0uuBdmmT1HhMjjQswiJxWuy3cZdRQZ4Zzf-H8n5arLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
 > Tow main drivers on my side:
> > - there are use cases/deployments that do not use them.
> > - moving them around was doable in term of required changes.
> >
> > There are no "slow-path" implications on my side. For example, vlan_*
> > fields are very critical performance wise, if the traffic is tagged.
> > But surely there are busy servers not using tagget traffic which will
> > enjoy the reduced cachelines footprint, and this changeset will not
> > impact negatively the first case.
> >
> > WRT to the vlan example, secmark and nfct require an extra conditional
> > to fetch the data. My understanding is that such additional conditional
> > is not measurable performance-wise when benchmarking the security
> > modules (or conntrack) because they have to do much more intersting
> > things after fetching a few bytes from an already hot cacheline.
> >
> > Not sure if the above somehow clarify my statements.
> >
> > As for expanding secmark to 64 bits, I guess that could be an
> > interesting follow-up discussion :)
> 
> The intersection between netdev and the LSM has a long and somewhat
> tortured past with each party making sacrifices along the way to get
> where we are at today.  It is far from perfect, at least from a LSM
> perspective, but it is what we've got and since performance is usually
> used as a club to beat back any changes proposed by the LSM side, I
> would like to object to these changes that negatively impact the LSM
> performance without some concession in return.  It has been a while
> since Casey and I have spoken about this, but I think the prefered
> option would be to exchange the current __u32 "sk_buff.secmark" field
> with a void* "sk_buff.security" field, like so many other kernel level
> objects.  Previous objections have eventually boiled down to the
> additional space in the sk_buff for the extra bits (there is some
> additional editorializing that could be done here, but I'll refrain),
> but based on the comments thus far in this thread it sounds like
> perhaps we can now make a deal here: move the LSM field down to a
> "colder" cacheline in exchange for converting the LSM field to a
> proper pointer.
> 
> Thoughts?

Is there a summary disucssion somewhere wrt. what exactly LSMs need?

There is the skb extension infra, does that work for you?

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-24 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-21 16:44 Paolo Abeni
2021-07-21 18:15 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-07-22  7:10   ` Paolo Abeni
2021-07-22 16:04     ` Casey Schaufler
2021-07-22 16:57       ` Paolo Abeni
2021-07-22 18:41         ` Paul Moore
2021-07-24 18:51           ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2021-07-25 14:57             ` Paul Moore
2021-07-25 16:25               ` Florian Westphal
2021-07-25 21:53                 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-07-25 22:52                   ` Florian Westphal
2021-07-26 15:13                     ` Casey Schaufler
2021-07-27  2:51                       ` Paul Moore
2021-07-28 16:21                         ` Paolo Abeni

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210724185141.GJ9904@breakpoint.cc \
    --to=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] sk_buff: optimize layout for GRO' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).