Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Aug 2018 03:04:42 +0200 | From | Dominique Martinet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] strparser: remove any offset before parsing messages |
| |
Dave Watson wrote on Wed, Aug 22, 2018: > > I've tried measuring that overhead as well by writing a more complex bpf > > program that would fetch the offset in the skb but for some reason I'm > > reading a 0 offset when it's not zero... well, not like there's much > > choice for this at this point anyway; I don't think we'll do this > > without pull, I'll put that on background. > > For what it is worth we checked the offset in bpf, something > along the lines of
Oh, thanks!
> > struct kcm_rx_msg { int full_len; int offset;}; > static inline struct kcm_rx_msg *kcm_rx_msg(struct __sk_buff *skb) > { return (struct kcm_rx_msg *)skb->cb;} > > int decode_framing(struct __sk_buff *skb) > { return load_word(skb, kcm_rx_msg(skb)->offset);}
So you're taking directly the address at skb->cb but the linux code has this function: static inline struct strp_msg *strp_msg(struct sk_buff *skb) { return (struct strp_msg *)((void *)skb->cb + offsetof(struct qdisc_skb_cb, data)); } and qdisc_skb_cb.data is another 8 bytes in, that would explain I had different results (and now I'm trying your snippet it does work), but I'll have to admit I fail to understand this....
Ok, so 'cb' in __sk_buff is 48 bytes in but 'cb' in sk_buff is 40 bytes in -- I might just start getting annoyed over this, is there a reason for the different offset?!
> Although it did puzzle me for a while figuring that out when I ran in > to it.
Well, at least it means some people were aware of the problem and worked around it in their own way -- what do you think of pulling instead? I mean, we could just document that "really well" and provide the get-offset function in some header that would be made include-able from bpf.. But right now this isn't really the case.
FWIW now I have this version I also don't notice any performance change with the pull on my example, it actually looks like the bpf load_word is slightly slower than pull to access data that is not in the head, but the noise level is pretty bad.
Thanks, -- Dominique
| |