From: sdf@google.com
To: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: allow bpf_{s,g}etsockopt from cgroup bind{4,6} hooks
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:38:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201130163813.GA553169@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201130010559.GA1991@rdna-mbp>
On 11/29, Andrey Ignatov wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> [Tue, 2020-11-17 20:05
> -0800]:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> wrote:
[..]
> >
> > I think it is ok, but I need to go through the locking paths more.
> > Andrey,
> > please take a look as well.
> Sorry for delay, I was offline for the last two weeks.
No worries, I was OOO myself last week, thanks for the feedback!
> From the correctness perspective it looks fine to me.
> From the performance perspective I can think of one relevant scenario.
> Quite common use-case in applications is to use bind(2) not before
> listen(2) but before connect(2) for client sockets so that connection
> can be set up from specific source IP and, optionally, port.
> Binding to both IP and port case is not interesting since it's already
> slow due to get_port().
> But some applications do care about connection setup performance and at
> the same time need to set source IP only (no port). In this case they
> use IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT socket option, what makes bind(2) fast
> (we've discussed it with Stanislav earlier in [0]).
> I can imagine some pathological case when an application sets up tons of
> connections with bind(2) before connect(2) for sockets with
> IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT enabled (that by itself requires setsockopt(2)
> though, i.e. socket lock/unlock) and that another lock/unlock to run
> bind hook may add some overhead. Though I do not know how critical that
> overhead may be and whether it's worth to benchmark or not (maybe too
> much paranoia).
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200505182010.GB55644@rdna-mbp/
Even in case of IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT, inet[6]_bind() does
lock_sock down the line, so it's not like we are switching
a lockless path to the one with the lock, right?
And in this case, similar to listen, the socket is still uncontended and
owned by the userspace. So that extra lock/unlock should be cheap
enough to be ignored (spin_lock_bh on the warm cache line).
Am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-30 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-18 0:17 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: expose bpf_{s,g}etsockopt helpers to bind{4,6} hooks Stanislav Fomichev
2020-11-18 0:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] selftests/bpf: rewrite test_sock_addr bind bpf into C Stanislav Fomichev
2020-12-02 0:26 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-12-02 17:04 ` sdf
2020-11-18 0:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: allow bpf_{s,g}etsockopt from cgroup bind{4,6} hooks Stanislav Fomichev
2020-11-18 4:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-30 1:05 ` Andrey Ignatov
2020-11-30 16:38 ` sdf [this message]
2020-11-30 23:02 ` Andrey Ignatov
2020-12-01 18:43 ` sdf
2020-12-01 19:22 ` Andrey Ignatov
2020-12-01 19:21 ` Andrey Ignatov
2020-11-18 0:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: extend bind{4,6} programs with a call to bpf_setsockopt Stanislav Fomichev
2020-12-02 0:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-12-02 17:25 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: expose bpf_{s,g}etsockopt helpers to bind{4,6} hooks Stanislav Fomichev
2020-12-02 17:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: allow bpf_{s,g}etsockopt from cgroup " Stanislav Fomichev
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=20201130163813.GA553169@google.com \
--to=sdf@google.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdna@fb.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).