netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [iptables PATCH 0/3] libxtables: Fix for pointless socket() calls
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:45:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200923114549.GA3947@salvia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200922225341.8976-1-phil@nwl.cc>

Hi Phil,

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:53:38AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> The motivation for this series was a bug report claiming a near 100%
> slowdown of iptables-restore when passed a large number of rules
> containing conntrack match between two kernel versions. Turns out the
> curlprit kernel change was within SELinux and in fact a performance
> optimization, namely an introduced hash table mapping from security
> context string to SID. This hash table insert, which happened for each
> new socket, slowed iptables-restore down considerably.
> 
> The actual problem exposed by the above was that iptables-restore opens
> a surprisingly large number of sockets when restoring said ruleset. This
> stems from bugs in extension compatibility checks done during extension
> registration (actually, "full registration").
> 
> One of the problems was that incompatible older revsions of an extension
> never were never dropped from the pending list, and thus retried for
> each rule using the extension. Coincidently, conntrack revision 0
> matches this criteria.
> 
> Another problem was a (likely) accidental recursion of
> xtables_fully_register_pending_*() via xtables_find_*(). In combination
> with incompatible match revisions stuck in pending list, this caused
> even more extra compatibility checks.
> 
> Solve all these problems by making pending extension lists sorted by
> (descending) revision number. If at least one revision was compatible
> with the kernel, any following incompatible ones may safely be dropped.
> This should on one hand get rid of the repeated compatibility checks
> while on the other maintain the presumptions stated in commit
> 3b2530ce7a0d6 ("xtables: Do not register matches/targets with
> incompatible revision").
> 
> Patch 1 establishes the needed sorting in pending extension lists,
> patch 2 then simplifies xtables_fully_register_pending_*() functions.
> Patch 3 is strictly speaking not necessary but nice to have as it
> streamlines array-based extension registrators with the extension
> sorting.

Did you run iptables-tests.py with older kernel?

Thanks.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-23 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-22 22:53 [iptables PATCH 0/3] libxtables: Fix for pointless socket() calls Phil Sutter
2020-09-22 22:53 ` [iptables PATCH 1/3] libxtables: Make sure extensions register in revision order Phil Sutter
2020-10-03 11:17   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-10-04 14:53     ` Phil Sutter
2020-10-05 22:42       ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-10-06  9:27         ` Phil Sutter
2020-10-06  9:50           ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-10-06 10:13             ` Phil Sutter
2020-10-06 10:48               ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-10-06 12:07   ` [iptables PATCH v2] " Phil Sutter
2020-10-06 23:59     ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-09-22 22:53 ` [iptables PATCH 2/3] libxtables: Simplify pending extension registration Phil Sutter
2020-10-05 23:08   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-09-22 22:53 ` [iptables PATCH 3/3] libxtables: Register multiple extensions in ascending order Phil Sutter
2020-10-05 23:41   ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-10-06  9:29     ` Phil Sutter
2020-09-23 11:45 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2020-09-23 14:30   ` [iptables PATCH 0/3] libxtables: Fix for pointless socket() calls Phil Sutter
2020-10-07  0:02 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso

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=20200923114549.GA3947@salvia \
    --to=pablo@netfilter.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=phil@nwl.cc \
    --cc=serhe.popovych@gmail.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).