On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:58:01PM -0400, Miloslav Trmac wrote:
> ----- "Neil Horman" <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:36:16AM -0400, Miloslav Trmac wrote:
> > > I think it would be useful to separate thinking about the data
> > format and about the transmission mechanism. ioctl() can quite well
> > be used to carry "netlink-like" packets - blobs of data with specified
> > length and flexible internal structure - and on the other hand,
> > netlink could be (and often is) used to carry fixed structs instead of
> > variable-length packets.
> >
> > Yes, both mechanism can be used to carry either fixed or variable length
> > payloads. The difference is ioctl has no built in mechanism to do variable
> > length data safely. To do variable length data you need to setup a bunch of
> > pointers to extra data that you have to copy separately.
> No, I can do exactly what netlink does:
>
> struct operation {
> // fixed params;
> size_t size_of_attrs;
> char attrs[]; // struct nlattr-tagged data
> };
>
> at the cost of one additional copy_from_user() (which netlink users often pay
> as well because using struct iovec is so convenient). Or perhaps even
> better, I can make sure the userspace application won't mess up the pointer
> arithmetic and get rid of all of the macros:
>
> struct operation {
> // fixed params;
> size_t num_attrs;
> struct { struct nlattr header; union { ... } data } attrs[];
> }
>
> at the same cost (and sacrificing string and variable-length parameters - but
> as argued below, pointers are still an option).
>
> > Even then, you're
> > fixing the number of pointers that you have in your base structure. To add
> > or
> > remove any would break your communication protocol to user space. This is
> > exactly the point I made above.
> The existence of a base structure does not inherently limit the number of
> extensions.
>
> > And there is no need for versioning in the netlink packet, because the data
> > types are all inlined, typed and attached to length values (at least when
> > done
> > correctly, see then nl_attr structure and associated macros). You don't
> > have
> > that with your ioctl. You could add it for certain, but at that point
> > you're
> > re-inventing the wheel.
> Right, the nl_attr structure is quite nice, and I didn't know about it.
> Still...
>
>
> > > As for the transmission mechanism, netlink seems to me to be one of
> > the least desirable options: as described above, it does not provide
> > any inherent advantages to ioctl, and it has significantly higher
> > overhead (sendmsg()+recvmsg(), handling netlink ACKs, matching
> > requests and replies in multi-threaded programs), and it makes
> > auditing difficult.
> >
> > You're incorrect. I've explained several of the advantiges above and in my
> > previous
> > email, you're just not seeing them. I will grant you some additional
> > overhead
> > in the use of of two system calls rather than one per operation in the
> > nominal
> > case, but there is no reason that can't be mitigated by the bundling of
> > multiple
> > operations into a single netlink packet.
> None of the existing crypto libraries provide such interfaces, and
> restructuring applications to take advantage of them would often be difficult
> - just restructuring the NSS _internals_ to support this would be difficult.
> Porting applications to a Linux-specific interface would make them less
> portable; besides, we have tried porting applications to a different library
> before (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation ), and based
> on that experience, any such new interface would have minimal, if any, impact.
>
> > Likewise, matching requests and responses in a multi-threaded program is
> > also an
> > already solved issue in multiple ways. The use of multiple sockets, in a 1
> > per
> > thread fashion is the most obvious.
> That would give each thread a separate namespace of keys/sessions, rather
> strange and a problem to fit into existing applications.
>
> > Theres also countless approaches in which a
> > thread can reassemble responses to registered requests in such a way that
> > the
> > user space portion of an application sees these calls as being synchronous.
> > Its
> > really not that hard.
> The overhead is still unnecessary.
>
> > > > 2) Use of pointers. Thats just a pain. You have the compat ioctl
> > > > stuff in
> > > > place to handle the 32/64 bit conversions, but it would be really nice
> > > > if you
> > > > could avoid having to maintain that extra code path.
> > > Pointers are pretty much unavoidable, to allow zero-copy references
> > to input/output data. If that means maintaining 32-bit compat paths
> > (as opposed to codifying say uint128_t for pointers in fixed-size
> > structures), then so be it: the 32-bit paths will simply have to be
> > maintained. Once we have the 32-bit compat paths, using pointers for
> > other unformatted, variable-sized data (e.g. IVs, multiple-precision
> > integers) seems to be easier than using variable-size data structures
> > or explicit pointer arithmetic to compute data locations within the
> > data packets.
> >
> > No, they're not unavoidable. Thats the point I made in my last email. If
> > you
> > use netlink, you inline all your data into a single byte array, with the
> > proper
> > headers on it. no use of additional pointers needed at all. One buffer
> > in, one
> > buffer out.
> Right, one copy of input data in sendmsg() from userspace to a skbuf, one
> copy of output data from a skbuf into userspace. The submitted code already
> implements zero-copy for data: the pointers are used to form scatter-gather
> lists submitted directly to the crypto code. I don't think I can do that
> with the linear skbuf I get from af_netlink.c.
>
>
> Overall, I'd much rather do the programming necessary to clone the nl_attr
> code, than suffer the system call overhead and audit problems, if those are
> the only options.
> Mirek
Ok, well, I suppose we're just not going to agree on this. I don't know how
else to argue my case, you seem to be bent on re-inventing the wheel instead of
using what we have. Good luck.
Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
