Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Paul Moore wrote: > > Don't forget Rusty's skb reservation patches from 1999... > > I'm guessing those would probably need to be forward ported just a teensy > weensy bit ;) The point being that the idea has been around since last century and has never gone anywhere :-) -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
On Wednesday, August 22 2007 6:09:36 pm James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote: > > From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:36 -0400 > > > > > Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset > > > to go along with it that described the idea? > > > > It was a thought mentioned at the first two netconfs, but it > > went nowhere because the more we discussed the implementation > > the more horrific it began to sound :-) > > Don't forget Rusty's skb reservation patches from 1999... I'm guessing those would probably need to be forward ported just a teensy weensy bit ;) -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:36 -0400 > > > Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset > > to go along with it that described the idea? > > It was a thought mentioned at the first two netconfs, but it > went nowhere because the more we discussed the implementation > the more horrific it began to sound :-) Don't forget Rusty's skb reservation patches from 1999... -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
Em Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:36:27PM -0700, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:36 -0400
>
> > Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset
> > to go along with it that described the idea?
>
> It was a thought mentioned at the first two netconfs, but it
> went nowhere because the more we discussed the implementation
> the more horrific it began to sound :-)
Which makes it more interesting to make it work :-)
Anyway, there is space there to be used, in 32 and 64 bits we have two
bytes after queue_mapping (this kernel doesn't have CONFIG_NET_SCHED nor
CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT enabled, if the first was we wouldn't have the hole,
but if both, as its common in distro kernels, were we would have the 2
bytes hole, as we can see on the pahole output for the 64bits kernel,
that uses the kernel config used in the Red Hat kernels.
Bonus points would go to continue the skb offset fight and reduce the
size of mac_header to two bytes, and then moving it to just after
queue_mapping. Do that and you'll get some credits :-P
- Arnaldo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] net-2.6.24]$ pahole -C sk_buff ../32bits/net/core/skbuff.o
struct sk_buff {
struct sk_buff * next; /* 0 4 */
struct sk_buff * prev; /* 4 4 */
struct sock * sk; /* 8 4 */
ktime_ttstamp; /*12 8 */
struct net_device *dev; /*20 4 */
struct dst_entry * dst; /*24 4 */
struct sec_path * sp; /*28 4 */
char cb[48]; /*3248 */
/* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) was 16 bytes ago --- */
unsigned int len; /*80 4 */
unsigned int data_len; /*84 4 */
__u16 mac_len; /*88 2 */
__u16 hdr_len; /*90 2 */
union {
__wsum csum; /* 4 */
struct {
__u16 csum_start; /*92 2 */
__u16 csum_offset; /*94 2 */
}/* 4 */
}; /*92 4 */
__u32 priority; /*96 4 */
__u8 local_df:1; /* 100 1 */
__u8 cloned:1; /* 100 1 */
__u8 ip_summed:2; /* 100 1 */
__u8 nohdr:1; /* 100 1 */
__u8 nfctinfo:3; /* 100 1 */
__u8 pkt_type:3; /* 101 1 */
__u8 fclone:2; /* 101 1 */
__u8 ipvs_property:1; /* 101 1 */
__u8 nf_trace:1; /* 101 1 */
/* XXX 1 bit hole, try to pack */
__be16 protocol; /* 102 2 */
void(*destructor)(struct sk_buff *); /* 104 4 */
intiif; /* 108 4 */
__u16 queue_mapping;/* 112 2 */
/* XXX 2 bytes hole, try to pack */
__u32 mark; /* 116 4 */
sk_buff_data_t transport_header; /* 120 4 */
sk_buff_data_t network_header; /* 124 4 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
sk_buff_data_t mac_header; /* 128 4 */
sk_buff_data_t tail; /* 132 4 */
sk_buff_data_t end; /* 136 4 */
unsigned char *head; /* 140 4 */
unsigned char *data; /* 144 4 */
unsigned int truesize; /* 148 4 */
atomic_t users;/* 152 4 */
/* size: 156, cachelines: 3 */
/* sum members: 154, holes: 1, sum holes: 2 */
/* bit holes: 1, sum bit holes: 1 bits */
/* last cacheline: 28 bytes */
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] net-2.6.24]$ pahole -C sk_buff ../64bits/net/core/skbuff.o
struct sk_buff {
struct sk_buff * next; /* 0 8 */
struct sk_buff * prev; /* 8 8 */
struct sock *
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:36 -0400 > Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset > to go along with it that described the idea? It was a thought mentioned at the first two netconfs, but it went nowhere because the more we discussed the implementation the more horrific it began to sound :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
On Wednesday, August 22 2007 5:20:05 pm Thomas Graf wrote: > * Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-08-22 16:31 > > > We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the > > problem, including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the > > ideas was to add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing > > how well that idea would go over (lead balloon is probably an > > understatement at best) I started looking at what I might be able to > > remove from the sk_buff struct to make room for a new field (the new > > field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff structure it appears that > > the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit redundant and removing > > the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending on the platform. > > Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the sk_buff.dev field > > around? Would the community be open to patches which removed it and > > transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, assuming the > > sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to adding a > > new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? > > This reminds of an idea someone brought up a while ago, it involved > having a way to attach additional space to an sk_buff for all the > different marks and other non-essential fields. Interesting. Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset to go along with it that described the idea? -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
On Wednesday, August 22 2007 5:08:05 pm David Miller wrote: > From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:31:34 -0400 > > > We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the > > problem, including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the > > ideas was to add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing > > how well that idea would go over (lead balloon is probably an > > understatement at best) I started looking at what I might be able to > > remove from the sk_buff struct to make room for a new field (the new > > field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff structure it appears that > > the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit redundant and removing > > the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending on the platform. > > Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the sk_buff.dev field > > around? Would the community be open to patches which removed it and > > transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, assuming the > > sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to adding a > > new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? > > It's there for performance, and I bet there might be some semantic > issues involved. Okay, thought that was probably the case considering the efforts to shrink the sk_buff as much as possible. > And ironically James Morris still owes me a struct sk_buff removal > from when I let him put the "secmark" thing in there! > > Stop spending money you guys haven't earned yet :-) Hey, I was just asking how much it cost ... but then again, you know the old adage, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" ;) Thanks. -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
* Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-08-22 16:31 > We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the problem, > including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the ideas was to > add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing how well that idea > would go over (lead balloon is probably an understatement at best) I started > looking at what I might be able to remove from the sk_buff struct to make > room for a new field (the new field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff > structure it appears that the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit > redundant and removing the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending > on the platform. Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the > sk_buff.dev field around? Would the community be open to patches which > removed it and transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, > assuming the sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to > adding a new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? This reminds of an idea someone brought up a while ago, it involved having a way to attach additional space to an sk_buff for all the different marks and other non-essential fields. I think skb->dev is required because we need to have a reference on the device while a packet being processing is put on a queue somewhere. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:31:34 -0400 > We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the problem, > including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the ideas was to > add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing how well that idea > would go over (lead balloon is probably an understatement at best) I started > looking at what I might be able to remove from the sk_buff struct to make > room for a new field (the new field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff > structure it appears that the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit > redundant and removing the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending > on the platform. Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the > sk_buff.dev field around? Would the community be open to patches which > removed it and transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, > assuming the sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to > adding a new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? It's there for performance, and I bet there might be some semantic issues involved. And ironically James Morris still owes me a struct sk_buff removal from when I let him put the "secmark" thing in there! Stop spending money you guys haven't earned yet :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff
Over in LSM/SELinux land there has been a lot of talk recently about how to deal with loopback and forwarded traffic, specifically, how to preserve the sender's security label on those two types of traffic. Yes, there is the existing sk_buff.secmark field but that is already being used for something else and utilizing it for this purpose has it's pros/cons. We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the problem, including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the ideas was to add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing how well that idea would go over (lead balloon is probably an understatement at best) I started looking at what I might be able to remove from the sk_buff struct to make room for a new field (the new field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff structure it appears that the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit redundant and removing the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending on the platform. Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the sk_buff.dev field around? Would the community be open to patches which removed it and transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, assuming the sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to adding a new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? Thanks. -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
