Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 11:20:33AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 08:58 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:31:03PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > Herbert Acked your patch, so I guess its OK, but I think it can be
> > > dangerous.
> > 
> > The tun socket accounting was never designed to stop it from
> > flooding another tun interface.  It's there to stop it from
> > transmitting above a destination interface TX bandwidth and
> > cause unnecessary packet drops.  It also limits the total amount
> > of kernel memory that can be pinned down by a single tun interface.
> > 
> > In this case, all we're doing is shifting the accounting from the
> > "hardware" queue to the qdisc queue.
> > 
> > So your ability to flood a tun interface is essentially unchanged.
> 
> I've just been looking at VPN performance, using netperf to flood an
> openconnect/ocserv connection over GigE and profiling my VPN client.
> 
> If I run netperf over the *unencrypted* link, it only sends 1Gb/s of
> packets — because the packets are correctly accounted to netperf's UDP
> socket until the moment they're actually transmitted on the wire, and
> the backpressure works correctly.
> 
> When I run over the VPN, netperf thinks it sent 2½ times the amount of
> TX traffic.

At some level, it's expected: netperf's manual actually says:
	A UDP_STREAM test has no end-to-end flow control - UDP provides none and
	neither does netperf. However, if you wish, you can configure netperf
	with --enable-intervals=yes to enable the global command-line -b and -w
	options to pace bursts of traffic onto the network.

> Packets are being dropped by the tun device before even
> feeding them up to the VPN client to be sent — presumably because of
> this skb_orphan() call. (The client itself should do the right thing,
> and only suck packets out of the tun at the rate it can shove them out
> *its* UDP socket.)

A simple work-around is to limit the rate using a non work conservig qdisc.

> Did we ever look at the alternative solution of taking ownership only
> after a timeout, or on demand when we need to shut down the device?

I've been thinking about this on and off, but didn't find a good
safe solution yet.

For timeout, the difficulty is to find a good timer value,
low enough to avoid DOS attacks but high enough to avoid
spurious packet drops (and expensive timer interrupts).

-- 
MST