Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net: ioam6: mitigate the two reallocations problem

[Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>]

On 7/4/24 11:23, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 19:44 +0200, Justin Iurman wrote:
>> @@ -313,6 +316,10 @@ static int ioam6_output(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>   
>>   	orig_daddr = ipv6_hdr(skb)->daddr;
>>   
>> +	local_bh_disable();
>> +	dst = dst_cache_get(&ilwt->cache);
>> +	local_bh_enable();
>> +
>>   	switch (ilwt->mode) {
>>   	case IOAM6_IPTUNNEL_MODE_INLINE:
> 
> I now see that the way you coded patch 1/2 makes this one easier.

Hi Paolo,

Indeed. I originally had it as a single two-in-one patch, then I thought 
it would be clearer to split it up (looks like I was wrong, sorry).

> Still I think it's quite doubtful to make the dst cache access
> unconditional.

By unconditional, you mean to get the cache _before_ the switch, right? 
If so, that's indeed the only solution to provide it to the encap/inline 
function for the mitigation. However, I don't see it as a problem. 
Instead of having (a) call encap/fill function, then (b) get cache; 
you'd have (a) get cache, then (b) call encap/fill function. IMHO, it's 
the same. I'll re-run our measurements and compare them to our previous 
results in order to confirm getting the cache early does not impact 
performance. The only exception would be when skb_cow_head returns an 
error in encap/fill functions: in that case, getting the cache early 
would be a waste of time, but this situation suggests there is a problem 
already so it's probably fine.

> Given the above I suggest to replace the 2 patches with a single one
> moving the whole dst_cache logic before the switch statement.

Will do!

> Also this does not address a functional issue, IMHO it's more a
> performance improvement, could as well target net-next with no fixes
> tag.

Hmmm, it's indeed OK to target net-next for patch #2 since it could be 
considered as an improvement (not really a functional issue per se). 
However, I'm not sure for patch #1. Wouldn't the kernel crash if not 
enough headroom was allocated (assuming no check is done before writing 
in the driver)?

> WRT seg6 and rpl tunnels, before any patch, I think we first need
> confirmation the problem is present there, too.

Ack. I'll try to run some tests to check that.

Thanks,
Justin

> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
>