Re: [PATCH iproute2] lib/libnetlink: ensure a minimum of 32KB for the buffer used in rtnl_recvmsg()

[Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:34:06AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 2/14/19 6:49 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 07:04:17PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >>
> >> Do we know of any single message sizes > 32k? 2d34851cd341 cites
> >> increasing VF's but at some point there is a limit. If not, the whole
> >> PEEK thing should go away and we just malloc 32k (or 64k) buffers for
> >> each recvmsg.
> > 
> > IFLA_VF_LIST is by far the biggest thing I have seen so far. I don't
> > remember exact numbers but the issue with 32KB buffer (for the whole
> > RTM_NELINK message) was encountered by some of our customers with NICs
> > having 120 or 128 VFs.
> > 
> > There is a bigger issue with IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, though, as it's an
> > attribute so that netlink limits its size to 64 KB. IIRC with current
> > size of IFLA_VF_INFO this would be reached with 270-280 VFs (I'm sure
> > the number was higer than 256 but not too much higher.)

Using netdevsim, 'ip link show' becomes unusable after enabling more
than 244 VFs. I guess it depends on how much info per VF is available.

> > This would mean unless we let something else grow too much, the whole
> > message shouldn't get much bigger than 64 KB. And if we can find some
> > other solution (e.g. passing VF information in separate messages if
> > client declares support), even 32 KB would be more than enough.
> 
> That's what I was asking, thanks. So 32kB today is sufficient, 64kB has
> future buffer. So this whole PEEK and allocate the message size is
> overkill. It could just as easily been bumped from 32kB to 64kB in the
> original patch and been good for a while.

Yes, I think the real problem is how VF-related messages are structured
currently.

Cheers, Phil