Patent Grant
11212373
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The disclosure relates generally to the field of electronic devices, as well as networks thereof. More particularly, the disclosure is directed to methods and apparatus for implementing computerized networking stack infrastructures. Various aspects of the present disclosure are directed to, in one exemplary aspect, data transfer within user space networking stack infrastructures.
The consumer electronics industry has seen explosive growth in network connectivity; for example, Internet connectivity is now virtually ubiquitous across many different device types for a variety of different applications and functionalities. The successful implementation of network connectivity over a myriad of different usage cases has been enabled by, inter alia, the principles of modular design and abstraction. Specifically, the traditional network communication paradigm incorporates multiple (generally) modular software “layers” into a “communication stack.” Each layer of the communication stack separately manages its own implementation specific considerations, and provides an “abstracted” communication interface to the next layer. In this manner, different applications can communicate freely across different devices without considering the underlying network transport.
The traditional network communication paradigm has been relatively stable for over 30 years. The Assignee hereof has developed its own implementation of a computer networking stack (based on the traditional networking paradigm) that is mature, robust, and feature-rich (yet conservative). This networking stack is the foundation for virtually all networking capabilities, including those used across the Assignee's products (e.g., MacBook®, iMac®, iPad®, and iPhone®, etc.) and has been designed to handle a variety of protocols (such as TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), UDP (User Datagram Protocol) and IP (Internet Protocol)), and proprietary extensions and functionalities.
While the traditional network communication paradigm has many benefits, changes in the commercial landscape have stretched the capabilities of the existing implementations. Over the past years new use cases have emerged that require capabilities beyond those of the traditional networking stack design. For example, some use cases require control and data movement operations to be performed in so-called “user space” (software that is executed outside the kernel, and specific to a user process). Common examples of such applications include without limitation e.g. Virtual Private Networks (VPN), application proxy, content and traffic filtering, and any number of other network-aware user applications.
Furthermore, certain types of user applications (e.g., media playback, real-time or interactive network applications) would benefit from workload-specific customizations and performance optimizations of the networking stack.
Unfortunately, the current one-size-fits-all networking stack was not designed for (and is thus ill-suited to) the requirements of the aforementioned use cases (and others contemplated herein). More directly, supporting user space applications and associated components from within the traditional in-kernel networking stack architecture adds complexity, increases technical debts (the implied cost of rework attributed to deploying a faster, but suboptimal, implementation), brings in higher processing costs, and results in suboptimal performance and higher power consumption.
To these ends, a networking stack architecture and technology that caters to emerging non-kernel use cases is needed. Ideally, but not as a requisite, such solutions should preserve backwards compatibility with the traditional in-kernel networking stack. More generally, improved methods and apparatus for manipulating and/or controlling lower layer networking communication protocols by higher layer software applications is desired.
The present disclosure satisfies the foregoing needs by providing, inter alia, methods and apparatus for data transfer within user space networking stack infrastructures.
In one aspect, a method for classifying a packet flow by a kernel space entity is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method includes: writing a user space packet to a pool of resources in a kernel space; sanitizing the user space packet; generating a kernel space metadata based on the sanitized user space packet; and using the kernel space metadata for a network communication.
In one variant, the method further includes: allocating the user space packet by: creating a user space metadata object; creating a kernel space metadata object; and where the user space metadata object references one or more buffers. In one such variant, the writing a user space data object includes writing one or more indexes that point to the one or more buffers.
In another variant, the sanitizing the user space packet includes checking a user space metadata object for malicious data. In one such variant, the generating the kernel space metadata includes: copying one or more portions of the user space metadata object; and padding the copied one or more portions of the user space metadata object into natural alignment for a processor. In another such variant, generating the kernel space metadata based on the sanitized user space packet includes: generating a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) header from the sanitized user space packet. In another variant, sanitizing the user space packet includes: checking that one or more portions of the user space metadata object conforms to a kernel space format requirement.
In another aspect, a system configured to classify a packet of a user space communication stack is disclosed. In one embodiment, the system includes: a network interface configured to communicate with a network; a processor apparatus; and a non-transitory computer readable apparatus including a storage medium having one or more computer programs stored thereon. In one exemplary embodiment, the one or more computer programs, when executed by the processing apparatus, cause the processing apparatus to: execute a user space communication stack for an application in user space; allocate a pool of resources in kernel space for the application in user space; copy a user space packet generated by the user space communication stack to the pool of resources; check that a user space packet conforms to a kernel space format requirement; and generate a kernel space metadata based on the checked user space packet.
In one variant, the user space packet includes one or more user space metadata and one or more pointers to user space data.
In another variant, the one or more computer programs, when executed by the processing apparatus, are further configured to cause the processing apparatus to: generate additional kernel space metadata based on one or more kernel space considerations. In one such variant, the one or more kernel space considerations includes a priority of the application in user space relative to another application in user space. In another such variant, the one or more kernel space considerations includes a network congestion associated with the network.
In another variant, the one or more computer programs, when executed by the processing apparatus, are further configured to cause the processing apparatus to: copy one or more portions of the checked user space packet; and pad the copied one or more portions of the checked user space packet into natural alignment for the processor apparatus.
In another aspect, a non-transitory computer readable apparatus including a storage medium having one or more computer programs stored thereon is disclosed. In one exemplary embodiment, the one or more computer programs, when executed by a processing apparatus, are configured to: receive a user space packet generated by a user space entity; check the user space packet for malicious content; generate a kernel space metadata for use by a kernel space entity based on the checked user space packet; and where the kernel space entity a first privilege and the user space entity has a second privilege different than the first privilege.
In one variant, the user space entity includes a user space communication stack associated with a user space application.
In one variant, the generated kernel space metadata is based on one or more portions of the user space packet. In one such variant, the generated kernel space metadata is naturally aligned for a processor in communication with the non-transitory computer readable apparatus. In another such variant, the generated kernel space metadata is based on one or more kernel space considerations. In another such variant, the generated kernel space metadata is based on one or more considerations of a different user space entity.
In one variant, the generated kernel space metadata is only accessible with the first privilege.
Other features and advantages of the present disclosure will immediately be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art with reference to the attached drawings and detailed description of exemplary embodiments as given below.
All figures © Copyright 2017-2018 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
Reference is now made to the drawings, wherein like numerals refer to like parts throughout.
Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are now described in detail. While embodiments are primarily discussed in the context of use in conjunction with an inter-processor communication (IPC) link such as that described in, for example, commonly owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/879,024 filed Oct. 8, 2015 and entitled “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR RUNNING AND BOOTING AN INTER-PROCESSOR COMMUNICATION LINK BETWEEN INDEPENDENTLY OPERABLE PROCESSORS”, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,078,361, and co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/112,480 filed Aug. 24, 2018 and entitled “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROL OF A JOINTLY SHARED MEMORY-MAPPED REGION”, each of which being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, it will be recognized by those of ordinary skill that the present disclosure is not so limited.
Existing Network Socket Technologies—
As shown in
As a brief aside, user space is a portion of system memory that a processor executes user processes from. User space is relatively freely and dynamically allocated for application software and a few device drivers. The kernel space is a portion of memory that a processor executes the kernel from. Kernel space is strictly reserved (usually during the processor boot sequence) for running privileged operating system (O/S) processes, extensions, and most device drivers. For example, each user space process normally runs in a specific memory space (its own “sandbox”), and cannot access the memory of other processes unless explicitly allowed. In contrast, the kernel is the core of a computer's operating system; the kernel can exert complete control over all other processes in the system.
The term “operating system” may refer to software that controls and manages access to hardware. An O/S commonly supports processing functions such as e.g., task scheduling, application execution, input and output management, memory management, security, and peripheral access. As used herein, the term “application” refers to software that can interact with the hardware only via procedures and interfaces offered by the O/S.
The term “privilege” may refer to any access restriction or permission which restricts or permits processor execution. System privileges are commonly used within the computing arts to, inter alia, mitigate the potential damage of a computer security vulnerability. For instance, a properly privileged computer system will prevent malicious software applications from affecting data and task execution associated with other applications and the kernel.
As used herein, the term “in-kernel” and/or “kernel space” may refer to data and/or processes that are stored in, and/or have privilege to access to, the kernel space memory allocations. In contrast, the terms “non-kernel” and/or “user space” refers to data and/or processes that are not privileged to access the kernel space memory allocations. In particular, user space represents the address space specific to the user process, whereas non-kernel space represents address space which is not in-kernel, but which may or may not be specific to user processes.
As previously noted, the illustrated socket 102 provides access to Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) 104, User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 106, and Inter-Processor Communication (IPC) 108. TCP, UDP, and IPC are various suites of transmission protocols each offering different capabilities and/or functionalities. For example, UDP is a minimal message-oriented encapsulation protocol that provides no guarantees to the upper layer protocol for message delivery and the UDP layer retains no state of UDP messages once sent. UDP is commonly used for real-time, interactive applications (e.g., video chat, voice over IP (VoIP)) where loss of packets is acceptable. In contrast, TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of data via a retransmission and acknowledgement scheme; TCP is generally used for file transfers where packet loss is unacceptable, and transmission latency is flexible.
As used herein, the term “encapsulation protocol” may refer to modular communication protocols in which logically separate functions in the network are abstracted from their underlying structures by inclusion or information hiding within higher level objects. For example, in one exemplary embodiment, UDP provides extra information (ports numbering).
As used herein, the term “transport protocol” may refer to communication protocols that transport data between logical endpoints. A transport protocol may include encapsulation protocol functionality.
Both TCP and UDP are commonly layered over an Internet Protocol (IP) 110 for transmission. IP is a connectionless protocol for use on packet-switched networks that provides a “best effort delivery”. Best effort delivery does not guarantee delivery, nor does it assure proper sequencing or avoidance of duplicate delivery. Generally these aspects are addressed by TCP or another transport protocol based on UDP.
As a brief aside, consider a web browser that opens a webpage; the web browser application would generally open a number of network sockets to download and/or interact with the various digital assets of the webpage (e.g., for a relatively common place webpage, this could entail instantiating ˜300 sockets). The web browser can write (or read) data to the socket; thereafter, the socket object executes system calls within kernel space to copy (or fetch) data to data structures in the kernel space.
As used herein, the term “domain” may refer to a self-contained memory allocation e.g., user space, kernel space. A “domain crossing” may refer to a transaction, event, or process that “crosses” from one domain to another domain. For example, writing to a network socket from the user space to the kernel space constitutes a domain crossing access.
In the context of a Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) based networking implementation, data that is transacted within the kernel space is stored in memory buffers that are also commonly referred to as “mbufs”. Each mbuf is a fixed size memory buffer that is used generically for transfers (mbufs are used regardless of the calling process e.g., TCP, UDP, etc.). Arbitrarily sized data can be split into multiple mbufs and retrieved one at a time or (depending on system support) retrieved using “scatter-gather” direct memory access (DMA) (“scatter-gather” refers to the process of gathering data from, or scattering data into, a given set of buffers). Each mbuf transfer is parameterized by a single identified mbuf.
Notably, each socket transfer can create multiple mbuf transfers, where each mbuf transfer copies (or fetches) data from a single mbuf at a time. As a further complication, because the socket spans both: (i) user space (limited privileges) and (ii) kernel space (privileged without limitation), the socket transfer verifies that each mbuf copy into/out of kernel space is valid. More directly, the verification process ensures that the data access is not malicious, corrupted, and/or malformed (i.e., that the transfer is appropriately sized and is to/from an appropriate area).
The processing overhead associated with domain crossing is a non-trivial processing cost. Processing cost affects user experience both directly and indirectly. A processor has a fixed amount of processing cycles every second; thus cycles that are used for transfer verification detract from more user perceptible tasks (e.g., rendering a video or audio stream). Additionally, processor activity consumes power; thus, increases in processing overhead increases power consumption.
Referring back to
Kernel extensions and public APIs enable, for example, 3rd party software developers to develop a wide variety of applications that can interact with a computer system at even the lowest layers of abstraction. For example, kernel extensions can enable socket level filtering, IP level filtering, and even device interface filtering. In the current consumer applications space, many emerging technologies now rely on closely coupled interfaces to the hardware and kernel functionality. For example, many security applications “sniff” network traffic to detect malicious traffic or filter undesirable content; this requires access to other application sandboxes (a level of privilege that is normally reserved for the kernel).
Unfortunately, 3rd party kernel extensions can be dangerous and/or undesirable. As previously noted, software applications are restricted for security and stability reasons; however the kernel is largely unrestricted. A 3rd party kernel extension can introduce instability issues because the 3rd party kernel extensions run in the same address space as the kernel itself (which is outside the purview of traditional memory read/write protections based on memory allocations). Illegal memory accesses can result in segmentation faults and memory corruptions. Furthermore, unsecure kernel extension can create security vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malware. Additionally, even where correctly used, a kernel extension can expose a user's data to the 3rd party software developer. This heightened level of access may raise privacy concerns (e.g., the 3rd party developer may have access to browsing habits, etc.).
Existing Performance Optimization Technologies—
The DLIL 206 provides a common interface layer to each of the various physical device drivers which will handle the subsequent data transfer (e.g., Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular, etc.). The DLIL performs a number of system-wide holistic network traffic management functions. In one such implementation, the DLIL is responsible for BSD Virtual Interfaces, IOKit Interfaces (e.g., DLIL is the entity by which IOKit based network drivers are connected to the networking stack), Active Queue Management (AQM), flow control and advisory action, etc. In most cases, the device driver 208 may be handled by an external device (e.g., a baseband co-processor), thus the DLIL 206 is usually (but not always) the lowest layer of the network communication stack.
During normal operation, the computer system will logically segment its tasks to optimize overall system operation. In particular, a processor will execute a task, and then “context switch” to another task, thereby ensuring that any single process thread does not monopolize processor resources from start to finish. More directly, a context switch is the process of storing the state of a process, or of a thread, so that it can be restored and execution resumed from the same point later. This allows multiple processes to share a single processor. However, excessive amounts of context switching can slow processor performance down. Notably, while the present discussion is primarily discussed within the context of a single processor for ease of understanding, multi-processor systems have analogous concepts (e.g., multiple processors also perform context switching, although contexts may not necessarily be resumed by the same processor).
For example, consider the following example of a packet reception. Packets arrive at the device driver 208A. The hardware managed by the device driver 208A may notify the processor via e.g., a doorbell signal (e.g., an interrupt). The device driver 208A work loop thread handles the hardware interrupt/doorbell, then signals the DLIL thread (Loop 1 210). The processor services the device driver 208A with high priority, thereby ensuring that the device driver 208A operation is not bottlenecked (e.g., that the data does not overflow the device driver's memory and/or that the device driver does not stall). Once the data has been moved out of the device driver, the processor can context switch to other tasks.
At a later point, the processor can pick up the DLIL 206 execution process again. The processor determines which socket the packets should be routed to (e.g., socket 204A) and routes the packet data appropriately (Loop 2 212). During this loop, the DLIL thread takes each packet, and moves each one sequentially into the socket memory space. Again, the processor can context switch to other tasks so as to ensure that the DLIL task does not block other concurrently executed processing.
Subsequently thereafter, when the socket has the complete packet data transfer the processor can wake the user space application and deliver the packet into user space memory (Loop 3 214). Generally, user space applications are treated at lower priority than kernel tasks; this can be reflected by larger time intervals between suspension and resumption. While the foregoing discussion is presented in the context of packet reception, artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily appreciate, given the contents of the present disclosure, that the process is substantially reversed for packet transmission.
As demonstrated in the foregoing example, context switching ensures that tasks of different processing priority are allocated commensurate amounts of processing time. For example, a processor can spend significantly more time executing tasks of relatively high priority, and service lower priority tasks on an as-needed basis. As a brief aside, human perception is much more forgiving than hardware operation. Consequently, kernel tasks are generally performed at a much higher priority than user space applications. The difference in priority between kernel and user space allows the kernel to handle immediate system management (e.g., hardware interrupts, and queue overflow) in a timely manner, with minimal noticeable impact to the user experience.
Moreover,
Unfortunately, changing tastes in consumer expectations cannot be effectively addressed with the one-size-fits-all model and the conservative in-kernel traditional networking stack. Artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily appreciate, given the contents of the present disclosure, that different device platforms have different capabilities; for example, a desktop processor has significantly more processing and memory capability than a mobile phone processor. More directly, the “one-size-fits-all” solution does not account for the underlying platform capabilities and/or application requirements, and thus is not optimized for performance. Fine-tuning the traditional networking stack for performance based on various “tailored” special cases results in an inordinate amount of software complexity which is untenable to support across the entire ecosystem of devices.
Emerging Use Cases
As shown, an application executing from user space can open a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) session 302 with a TLS security layer 304 in order to securely transfer data (Application Transport Security (ATS) services) over a network socket 306 that offers TCP/IP transport 308, 310.
As a brief aside, TLS is a record based protocol; in other words, TLS uses data records which are arbitrarily sized (e.g., up to 16 kilobytes). In contrast, TCP is a byte stream protocol (i.e., a byte has a fixed length of eight (8) bits). Consequently, the TCP layer subdivides TLS records into a sequentially ordered set of bytes for delivery. The receiver of the TCP byte stream reconstructs TLS records from the TCP byte stream by receiving each TCP packet, re-ordering the packets according to sequential numbering to recreate the byte stream, and extracting the TLS record from the aggregated byte stream. Notably, every TCP packet of the sequence must be present before the TLS record can be reconstructed. Even though TCP can provide reliable delivery under lossy network conditions, there are a number of situations where TLS record delivery could fail. For example, under ideal conditions TCP isolates packet loss from its client (TLS in this example), and a single TCP packet loss should not result in failed TLS record delivery. However, the TLS layer or the application above may incorporate a timeout strategy in a manner that is unaware of the underlying TCP conditions. Thus, if there's significant packet loss in the network, the TLS timeout may be hit (and thus result in a failure to the application) even though TCP would normally provide reliable delivery.
Referring back to
Ideally, the TLS layer should set TLS record sizes based on network condition information. In particular, large TLS records can efficiently use network bandwidth, but require many successful TCP packet deliveries. In contrast, small TLS records incur significantly more network overhead, but can survive poor bandwidth conditions. Unfortunately, networking condition information is lower layer information that is available to the kernel space (e.g., the DLIL and device drivers), but generally restricted from user space applications. Some 3rd party application developers and device manufacturers have incorporated kernel extensions (or similar operating system capabilities) to provide network condition information to the TLS user space applications; however, kernel extensions are undesirable due to the aforementioned security and privacy concerns. Alternately, some 3rd party applications infer the presence of lossy network conditions based on historic TLS record loss. Such inferences are an indirect measure and significantly less accurate and lag behind real-time information (i.e., previous packet loss often does not predict future packet loss).
As shown, an application executing from user space can open a Virtual Private Network (VPN) session 402 over a network socket 406 that offers TCP/IP transport 408, 410. The VPN session is secured with Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP) 412. The encrypted packet is securely tunneled via TLS 404 (in user space) and recursively sent again over TCP/IP transport 408, 410.
As illustrated within
Artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts, given the contents of the present disclosure, will readily appreciate that the exemplary recursive cross layer transaction of
As shown, three (3) different concurrently executed applications (e.g., a real time application 502, interactive application 504, and file transfer applications 506) in user space, each open a session over network sockets 508 (508A, 508B, 508C) that offer TCP/UDP/IP transport 510/512. Depending on the type of physical interface required, the sessions are switched to BSD network interfaces (ifnet) 514 (514A, 514B, 514C) which handle the appropriate technology. Three different illustrated technology drivers are shown: Wi-Fi 516, Bluetooth 518, and cellular 520.
It is well understood within the networking arts that different application types are associated with different capabilities and requirements. One such example is real time applications 502, commonly used for e.g., streaming audio/visual and/or other “live” data. Real time data has significant latency and/or throughput restrictions; moreover, certain real time applications may not require (and/or support) retransmission for reliable delivery of lost or corrupted data. Instead, real time applications may lower bandwidth requirements to compensate for poor transmission quality (resulting in lower quality, but timely, delivered data).
Another such example is interactive applications 504, commonly used for e.g., human input/output. Interactive data should be delivered at latencies that are below the human perceptible threshold (within several milliseconds) to ensure that the human experience is relatively seamless. This latency interval may be long enough for a retransmission, depending on the underlying physical technology. Additionally, human perception can be more or less tolerant of certain types of data corruptions; for example, audio delays below 20 ms are generally imperceptible, whereas audio corruptions (pops and clicks) are noticeable. Consequently, some interactive applications may allow for some level of error correction and/or adopt less aggressive bandwidth management mechanisms depending on the acceptable performance requirements for human perception.
In contrast to real time applications and interactive applications, file transfer applications 506 require perfect data fidelity without latency restrictions. To these ends, most file transfer technologies support retransmission of lost or corrupted data, and retransmission can have relatively long attempt intervals (e.g., on the order of multiple seconds to a minute).
Similarly, within the communication arts, different communication technologies are associated with different capabilities and requirements. For example, Wi-Fi 516 (wireless local area networking based on IEEE 802.11) is heavily based on contention based access and is best suited for high bandwidth deliveries with reasonable latency. Wi-Fi is commonly used for file transfer type applications. Bluetooth 518 (personal area networking) is commonly used for low data rate and low latency applications. Bluetooth is commonly used for human interface devices (e.g., headphones, keyboards, and mouses). Cellular network technologies 520 often provide non-contention based access (e.g., dedicated user access) and can be used over varying geographic ranges. Cellular voice or video delivery is a good example of streaming data applications. Artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily recognize that the foregoing examples are purely illustrative, and that different communication technologies are often used to support a variety of different types of application data. For example, Wi-Fi 516 can support file transfer, real time data transmission and/or interactive data with equivalent success.
Referring back to
Moreover, in the computing arts, a “locking” synchronization mechanism is used by the kernel to enforce access limits (e.g., mutual exclusion) on resources in multi-threaded execution. During operation, each thread acquires a lock before accessing the corresponding locked resources data. In other words, at any point in time, the processor is necessarily limited to only the resources available to its currently executing process thread.
Unfortunately, each of the applications has different latency, throughput and processing utilization requirements. Since, each of the network interfaces is sending and receiving data at different times, in different amounts, and with different levels of priority. From a purely logistical standpoint, the kernel is constantly juggling between high priority kernel threads (to ensure that the high priority hardware activities do not stall out) while still servicing each of its concurrently running applications to attempt to provide acceptable levels of service. In some cases, however, the kernel is bottlenecked by the processor's capabilities. Under such situations, some threads will be deprioritized; currently, the traditional networking stack architecture is unable it clearly identify which threads can be deprioritized while still providing acceptable user service.
For example, consider an “expected use” device of
Unfortunately, the addition of an unexpected amount of additional secondary interactive applications 504 (e.g., remote control interface, headphones, and/or other interface devices) and/or background file transfer applications can easily overwhelm the processor. Specifically, the primary real time application does not get enough CPU cycles to run within its time budget, because the kernel threads handling networking are selected at a higher priority. In other words, the user space application is not able to depress the priority of kernel networking threads (which are servicing both the primary and secondary processes). This can result in significantly worse user experience when the video rendering stalls out (video frame misses or video frame drops); whereas simply slowing down a file transfer or degrading the interaction interface may have been preferable.
Prior art solutions have tailored software for specific device implementations (e.g., the Apple TV®). For example, the device can be specifically programmed for an expected use. However, tailored solutions are becoming increasingly common and by extension the exceptions have swallowed the more generic use case. Moreover, tailored solutions are undesirable from multiple software maintenance standpoints. Devices have limited productive lifetimes, and software upkeep is non-trivial.
Ideally, a per-application or per-profile workload optimization would enable a single processor (or multiple processors) to intelligently determine when and/or how too intelligently context switch and/or prioritize its application load (e.g., in the example of
Exemplary Networking Architecture—
A networking stack architecture and technology that caters to the needs of non-kernel based networking use cases is disclosed herein. Unlike prior art monolithic networking stacks, the exemplary networking stack architecture described hereinafter includes various components that span multiple domains (both in-kernel, and non-kernel), with varying transport compositions, workload characteristics and parameters.
In one exemplary embodiment, a networking stack architecture is disclosed that provides an efficient infrastructure to transfer data across domains (user space, non-kernel, and kernel). Unlike the traditional networking paradigm that hide the underlying networking tasks within the kernel and substantially limits control thereof by any non-kernel applications, the various embodiments described herein enable faster and more efficient cross domain data transfers.
Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide a faster and more efficient packet input/output (I/O) infrastructure than prior art techniques. Specifically, unlike traditional networking stacks that use a “socket” based communication, disclosed embodiments can transfer data directly between the kernel and user space domains. Direct transfer reduces the per-byte and per-packet costs relative to socket based communication. Additionally, direct transfer can improve observability and accountability with traffic monitoring.
In one such variant, a simplified data movement model that does not require mbufs (memory buffers) is described in greater detail herein. During one such exemplary operation, the non-kernel processes can efficiently transfer packets directly to and from the in-kernel drivers.
In another embodiment, a networking stack architecture is disclosed that exposes the networking protocol stack infrastructure to user space applications via network extensions. In one such embodiment, the network extensions are software agents that enable extensible, cross-platform-capable, user space control of the networking protocol stack functionality. In another such embodiment, an in-process user space networking stack facilitates tighter integration between the protocol layers (including TLS) and the application or daemon. In some cases, the user space architecture can expose low-level networking interfaces to transport protocols and/or encapsulation protocols such as UDP, TCP, and QUIC; and enable network protocol extensions and rapid development cycles. Moreover, artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts, given the contents of the present disclosure, will readily appreciate that the various principles described herein may be applied to a variety of other operating systems (such as Windows, Linux, Unix, Android), and/or other cross platform implementations.
In some variants, exemplary embodiments of the networking stack can support multiple system-wide networking protocol stack instances (including an in-kernel traditional network stack). Specifically, in one such variant, the exemplary networking stack architecture coexists with the traditional in-kernel networking stack so as to preserve backwards compatibility for legacy networking applications. In such implementations, the in-kernel network stack instance can coexist with the non-kernel network stack via namespace sharing and flow forwarding.
As used herein, an “instance” may refer to a single copy of a software program or other software object; “instancing” and “instantiations” refers to the creation of the instance. Multiple instances of a program can be created; e.g., copied into memory several times. Software object instances are instantiations of a class; for example, a first software agent and second software instance are each distinct instances of the software agent class.
In one such implementation, load balancing for multiple networking stacks is handled within the kernel, thereby ensuring that no single networking stack (including the in-kernel stack) monopolizes system resources.
As a related variant, current/legacy applications can be handled within the in-kernel stack. More directly, by supporting a separate independent in-kernel BSD stack, legacy applications can continue to work without regressions in functionality and performance.
As shown, a user space application 602 can initiate a network connection by instancing user space protocol stacks 604. Each user space protocol stacks includes network extensions for e.g., TCP/UDP/QUIC/IP, cryptography, framing, multiplexing, tunneling, and/or any number of other networking stack functionalities. Each user space protocol stack 604 communicates with one or more nexuses 608 via a channel input/output (I/O) 606. Each nexus 608 manages access to the network drivers 610. Additionally shown is legacy application 612 support via existing network socket technologies 614. While the illustrated embodiment shows nexus connections to both user space and in-kernel networking stacks, it is appreciated that the nexus may also enable e.g., non-kernel networking stacks (such as may be used by a daemon or other non-kernel, non-user process).
The following topical sections hereinafter describe the salient features of the various logical constructs in greater detail.
Exemplary I/O Infrastructure
In one exemplary embodiment, the non-kernel networking stack provides a direct channel input output (I/O) 606. In one such implementation, the channel I/O 606 is included as part of the user space protocol stack 604. More directly, the channel I/O 606 enables the delivery of packets as a raw data I/O into kernel space with a single validation (e.g., only when the user stack provides the data to the one or more nexuses 608). The data can be directly accessed and/or manipulated in situ, the data need not be copied to an intermediary buffer.
In one exemplary implementation, a channel is an I/O scheme leveraging kernel-managed shared memory. During an access, the channel I/O is presented to the process (e.g., the user process or kernel process) as a file descriptor based object, rather than as data. In order to access the data, the process de-references the file descriptor for direct access to the shared memory within kernel space. In one such implementation, the file descriptor based object based I/O is compatible with existing operating system signaling and “eventing” (event notification/response) mechanisms. In one exemplary variant, the channel I/O is based on Inter Process Communication (IPC) packets.
As used herein, the term “descriptor” may refer to data structures that indicate how other data is stored. Descriptors generally include multiple parameters and can be used to identify more complex data structures; for example, a descriptor may include one or more of type, size, address, tag, flag, headers, footers, metadata, structural links to other data descriptors or locations, and/or any other number of format or construction information.
Within the context of the present disclosure, as used herein, the term “pointer” may refer to a specific reference data type that “points” or “references” a location of data in memory. Typically, a pointer stores a memory address that is interpreted by a compiler as an absolute location in system memory or a relative location in system memory based on e.g., a base address, reference address, memory window, or other memory subset. During operation, a pointer is “de-referenced” to recover the data that is stored in the location of memory.
As used herein, the term “metadata” refers to data that describes data. Metadata varies widely in application, but generally falls into one of the descriptive, structural, and/or administrative categories. Descriptive metadata describes data in a manner to enable e.g., discovery and/or identification. Common examples include without limitation e.g., type, size, index tags, and keywords. Structural metadata describes the structure of the data e.g., how compound objects are put together. Common examples include without limitation e.g., prefix, postfix, table of contents, order, and/or any other information that describes the relationships and other characteristics of digital materials. Administrative metadata provides information to help manage a resource; common examples include e.g., authorship and creation information, access privileges, and/or error checking and security based information (e.g., cyclic redundancy checks (CRC), parity, etc.).
In one exemplary embodiment, the channel I/O can be further leveraged to provide direct monitoring of its corresponding associated memory. More directly, unlike existing data transfers which are based on mbuf based divide/copy/move, etc., the channel I/O can provide (with appropriate viewing privileges) a direct window into the memory accesses of the system. Such implementations further simplify software development as debugging and/or traffic monitoring can be performed directly on traffic. Direct traffic monitoring can reduce errors attributed to false positives/false negatives caused by e.g., different software versioning, task scheduling, compiler settings, and/or other software introduced inaccuracies.
More generally, unlike prior art solutions which relied on specialized networking stack compositions to provide different degrees of visibility at different layers, the monitoring schemes of the present disclosure provide consistent system-wide channel monitoring infrastructures. Consistent frameworks for visibility, accounting, and debugging greatly improve software maintenance and upkeep costs.
Additionally, simplified schemes for egress filtering can be used to prevent traffic spoofing for user space networking stack instances. For example, various embodiments ensure that traffic of an application cannot be hijacked by another malicious application (by the latter claiming to use the same tuple information, e.g. TCP/UDP port).
In one exemplary embodiment, the in-kernel network device drivers (e.g. Wi-Fi, Cellular, Ethernet) use simplified data movement models based on the aforementioned channel I/O scheme. More directly, the user space networking stacks can directly interface to each of the various different technology based network drivers via channel I/O; in this manner, the user space networking stacks do not incur the traditional data mbuf based divide/copy/move penalties. Additionally, user space applications can directly access user space networking components for immediate traffic handling and processing.
Exemplary Nexus—
In one exemplary embodiment, the networking stack connects to one or more nexus 608. In one such implementation, the nexus 608 is a kernel space process that arbitrates access to system resources including, without limitation e.g., shared memory within kernel space, network drivers, and/or other kernel or user processes. In one such variant, the nexus 608 aggregates one or more channels 606 together for access to the network drivers 610 and/or shared kernel space memory.
In one exemplary implementation, a nexus is a kernel process that determines the format and/or parameters of the data flowing through its connected channels. In some variants, the nexus may further perform ingress and/or egress filtering.
The nexus may use the determined format and/or parameter information to facilitate one-to-one and one-to-many topologies. For example, the nexus can create user-pipes for process-to-process channels; kernel-pipes for process-to-kernel channels; network interfaces for direct channel connection from a process to in-kernel network drivers, or legacy networking stack interfaces; and/or flow-switches for multiplexing flows across channels (e.g., switching a flow from one channel to one or more other channels).
Additionally, in some variants the nexus may provide the format, parameter, and/or ingress egress information to kernel processes and/or one or more appropriately privileged user space processes.
In one exemplary embodiment, the nexus 608 may additionally ensure that there is fairness and/or appropriately prioritize each of its connected stacks. For example, within the context of
In one such embodiment, in-kernel, non-kernel, and/or user space infrastructures ensure fairness and can reduce latency due to e.g., buffer bloat (across channels in a given nexus, as well as flows within a channel). In other words, the in-kernel and/or user space infrastructures can negotiate proper buffering sizes based on the expected amount of traffic and/or network capabilities for each flow. By buffering data according to traffic and/or network capability, buffers are not undersized or oversized.
As a brief aside, “buffer bloat” is commonly used to describe e.g., high latency caused by excessive buffering of packets. Specifically, buffer bloat may occur when excessively large buffers are used to support a real time streaming application. As a brief aside, TCP retransmission mechanism relies on measuring the occurrence of packet drops to determine the available bandwidth. Under certain congestion conditions, excessively large buffers can prevent the TCP feedback mechanism from correctly inferring the presence of a network congestion event in a timely manner (the buffered packets “hide” the congestion, since they are not dropped). Consequently, the buffers have to drain before TCP congestion control resets and the TCP connection can correct itself.
Referring back to
While the foregoing example is based on “fairness” standard, artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily appreciate that other schemes may be substituted with equivalent success given the contents of the present disclosure. For example, some embodiments may dynamically or statically service the user application networking space with greater or less weight compared to the legacy socket based access. For example, user application networking space may be more heavily weighted to improve overall performance or functionality, whereas legacy socket based access may be preferred where legacy applications are preferentially supported (e.g., see Protocol Unloading Offloading, discussed infra).
Exemplary Network Extensions
In one exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a network extension is disclosed. A network extension is an agent-based extension that is tightly coupled to network control policies. The agent is executed by the kernel and exposes libraries of network control functionality to user space applications. During operation, user space software can access kernel space functionality through the context and privileges of the agent.
As used herein, the term “agent” may refer to a software agent that acts for a user space application or other program in a relationship of agency with appropriate privileges. The agency relationship between the agent and the user space application implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate given the user application and kernel privileges. A software agent is privileged to negotiate with the kernel and other software agents regarding without limitation e.g., scheduling, priority, collaboration, visibility, and/other sharing of user space and kernel space information. While the agent negotiates with the kernel on behalf of the application, the kernel ultimately decides on scheduling, priority, etc.
Various benefits and efficiencies can be gained through the use of network extensions. In particular, user space applications can control the protocol stack down to the resolution of exposed threads (i.e., the threads that are made available by the agent). In other words, software agents expose specific access to lower layer network functionality which was previously hidden or abstracted away from user space applications. For example, consider the previous examples of TLS record sizing (see e.g.,
Similarly, consider the previous examples of multi-threading within the context of expected use devices (see e.g.,
As a related benefit, since a software agent represents the application to the kernel; the agent can trust the kernel, but the kernel may or may not trust the agent. For example, a software agent can be used by the kernel to convey network congestion information in a trusted manner to the application; similarly, a software agent can be used by an application to request a higher network priority. Notably, since a software agent operates from user space, the agent's privilege is not promoted to kernel level permissions. In other words, the agent does not permit the user application to exceed its privileges (e.g., the agent cannot commandeer the network driver at the highest network priority, or force a read/write to another application's memory space without the other kernel and/or other application's consent).
Networking extensions allow the user space application to execute networking communications functionality within the user space and interpose a network extension between the user space application and the kernel space. As a result, the number of cross domain accesses for complex layering of different protocol stacks can be greatly reduced. Limiting cross domain accesses prevents context switching and allows the user space to efficiently police its own priorities. For example, consider the previous example of a VPN session as was previously illustrated in
As used herein, the term “interposition” may refer to the insertion of an entity between two or more layers. For example, an agent is interposed between the application and the user space networking stack. Depending on the type of agent or network extension, the interposition can be explicit or implicit. Explicit interposition occurs where the application explicitly instances the agent or network extension. For example, the application may explicitly call a user space tunnel extension. In contrast, implicit interposition occurs where the application did not explicitly instance the agent or network extension. Common examples of implicit interposition occur where one user space application sniffs the traffic or filters the content of another user space application.
Namespace Sharing & Flow Forwarding Optimizations
In one exemplary optimization of the present disclosure, the nexus includes a namespace registration and management component that manages a common namespace for all of its connected networking stack instances. As a brief aside, a namespace generally refers to a set of unique identifiers (e.g., the names of types, functions, variables) within a common context. Namespaces are used to prevent naming “collisions” which occur where multiple processes call the same resource differently and/or call different resources the same.
In one such implementation, the shared networking protocol has a common namespace (e.g., {Address, Protocol, and Port}) across multiple networking stack instances. Sharing a namespace between different networking stacks reduces the amount of kernel burden, as the kernel can natively translate (rather than additionally adding a layer of network address translation).
For example, if a first application acquires port 80, the namespace registration ensures that other applications will not use port 80 (e.g., they can be assigned e.g., port 81, 82, etc.) In some such implementations, legacy clients may use default namespaces that conflict (e.g., a default web client may always select port 80); thus the shared namespace registration may also be required to force a re-assignment of a new identifier (or else translate for) such legacy applications.
In one exemplary embodiment, the namespace registration and management components control flow-switching and forwarding logic of each flow-switch nexus instance. For example, as previously noted, the nexus can create user-pipes for process-to-process channels; kernel-pipes for process-to-kernel channels; network interfaces for direct channel connection from a process to in-kernel network drivers, or legacy networking stack interfaces; and/or flow-switches for multiplexing flows across channels (e.g., switching a flow from one channel to one or more other channels).
For example, during normal operation when an application requests a port, the namespace registration and management will create a flow and assign a particular port to the application. Subsequent packets addressed to the port will be routed appropriately to the flow's corresponding application. In one such variant, packets that do not match any registered port within the shared namespace registration and management will default to the legacy networking stack (e.g., the flow-switch assumes that the unrecognized packet can be parsed and/or ignored by the fallback legacy stack).
Artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily appreciate, given the contents of the present disclosure that disparate and/or otherwise distinct namespace registrations and/or management components may be preferable based on other implementation specific considerations. For example, some implementations may prefer to shield namespaces from other external processes e.g., for security and/or privacy considerations. In other implementations, the benefits associated with native namespace translation may be less important than supporting legacy namespaces.
Protocol Onloading and Offloading
In the foregoing discussions, the improvements to user space operation may be primarily due to the user space networking stack, as shown in
Colloquially, the term “hardware offload” may be commonly used to denote tasks which can be handled within dedicated hardware logic to improve overall processing speed or efficiency. One such example is the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) calculation which is an easily parameterized, closed, iterative calculation. The characteristics of CRC calculation lend itself to hardware offload because the CRC does not benefit from the flexibility of a general purpose processor, and CRC calculations are specialized functions that are not transferable to other processing operations.
By analogous extension, as used herein, the term “protocol offload” may refer to processes that should be handled within the legacy networking stack because they are not specific to a user space application or task. In contrast, the term “protocol onload” may refer to processes that should be handled within a user space networking stack because they are specific to a user space application or task and benefit the overall performance. As a general qualitative criteria, tasks which are “fast” (e.g., generally UDP/TCP/IP based user space applications) are protocol onloaded to improve user performance; in contrast “slow” tasks (e.g., ARP, IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Routing table updates, control path for managing interfaces, etc.) are protocol offloaded.
For example, consider Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request handling; when an ARP request comes in, the host processor responds with a reply. However, the ARP request is non-specific to a user space application; rather the ARP reply concerns the holistic system. More generally, any networking process that is not specific to an application space can be implemented within the kernel under legacy techniques. Alternatively, any process that can be handled regardless of device state should remain with the kernel (e.g., the kernel persists across low power states, and is never killed).
By allowing the mature in-kernel networking stack to retain ownership of certain control logic (e.g. routing and policy table, interface configuration, address management), various embodiments of the present disclosure avoid “split-brain” behaviors. In other words, the kernel ensures that networking data and/or availability remains consistent regardless of the user space application availability.
Exemplary User Space Networking Stack
Referring now to
In one exemplary embodiment, the user space networking stack 700 is instantiated within an application user space 718. More directly, the user space networking stack 700 is treated identically to any one of multiple threads 710 within the application user space 718. Each of the coexisting threads 720 has access to the various functions and libraries offered by the user space networking stack via a direct function call.
As a brief aside, each of the threads 720 reside within the same address space. By virtue of their shared addressability, each of the threads may grant or deny access to their portions of shared address space via existing user space memory management schemes and/or virtual machine type protections. Additionally, threads can freely transfer data structures from one to the other, without e.g., incurring cross domain penalties. For example, TCP data 710 can be freely passed to TLS 706 as a data structure within a user space function call.
As previously noted, the user space networking stack 700 may grant or deny access to other coexistent user space threads; e.g., a user space thread is restricted to the specific function calls and privileges made available via the application interface 702. Furthermore, the user space networking stack 700 is further restricted to interfacing the operating system via the specific kernel function calls and privileges made available via the operating system interface 704. In this manner, both the threads and the user space networking stack have access and visibility into the kernel space, without compromising the kernel's security and stability.
One significant benefit of the user space networking stack 700 is that networking function calls can be made without acquiring various locks that are present in the in-kernel networking stack. As previously noted, the “locking” mechanism is used by the kernel to enforce access limits on multiple threads from multiple different user space applications; however in the user space, access to shared resources are handled within the context of only one user application space at a time, consequently access to shared resources are inherently handled by the single threading nature of user space execution. More directly, only one thread can access the user space networking stack 700 at a time; consequently, kernel locking is entirely obviated by the user space networking stack.
Another benefit of user space based network stack operation is cross platform compatibility. For example, certain types of applications (e.g., iTunes®, Apple Music® developed by the Assignee hereof) are deployed over a variety of different operating systems. Similarly, some emerging transport protocols (e.g. QUIC) are ideally served by portable and common software between the client and server endpoints. Consistency in the user space software implementation allows for better and more consistent user experience, improves statistical data gathering and analysis, and provides a foundation for enhancing, experimenting and developing network technologies used across such services. In other words, a consistent user space networking stack can be deployed over any operating system platform without regard for the native operating system stack (e.g., which may vary widely).
Another important advantage of the exemplary user space networking stack is the flexibility to extend and improve the core protocol functionalities, and thus deliver specialized stacks based on the application's requirements. For example, a video conferencing application (e.g., FaceTime® developed by the Assignee hereof) may benefit from a networking stack catered to optimize performance for real-time voice and video-streaming traffics (e.g., by allocating more CPU cycles for video rendering, or conversely deprioritizing unimportant ancillary tasks). In one such variant, a specialized stack can be deployed entirely within the user space application, without specialized kernel extensions or changes to the kernel. In this manner, the specialized user space networking stack can be isolated from networking stacks. This is important both from a reliability standpoint (e.g., updated software doesn't affect other software), as well as to minimize debugging and reduce development and test cycle times.
Furthermore, having the network transport layer (e.g. TCP, QUIC) reside in user space can open up many possibilities for improving performance. For example, as previously alluded to, applications (such as TLS) can be modified depending on the underlying network connections. User space applications can be collapsed or tightly integrated into network transports. In some variants, data structure sizes can be adjusted based on immediate lower layer network condition information (e.g., to accommodate or compensate for poor network conditions). Similarly, overly conservative or under conservative transport mechanisms can be avoided (e.g., too much or not enough buffering previously present at the socket layer). Furthermore, unnecessary data copies and/or transforms can be eliminated and protocol signaling (congestion, error, etc.) can be delivered more efficiently.
In yet another embodiment, the exemplary user space networking stack further provides a framework for both networking clients and networking providers. In one such variant, the networking client framework allows the client to interoperate with any network provider (including the legacy BSD stack). In one such variant, the network provider framework provides consistent methods of discovery, connection, and data transfer to networking clients. By providing consistent frameworks for clients and providers which operate seamlessly over a range of different technologies (such as a VPN, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular, etc.), the client software can be greatly simplified while retaining compatibility with many different technologies.
Exemplary Proxy Agent Application Operation
Inside the kernel, the data is divided/copied/moved for delivery via the TCP/IP stack 806/808 to the BSD network interface 810A. The BSD network interface 810A routes the data to a virtual driver 812A. These steps may introduce buffering delays as well as improper buffer sizing issues such as buffer bloat.
In order to access the application proxy (which is in a different user space), the virtual driver reroutes the data to a second socket 804B which is in the different user space from the original application. This constitutes a second domain crossing, which incurs additional validation and context switching penalties.
In user space, the data enters an agent 814 which prepares the data for delivery (tunneling 816, framing 818, and cryptographic security 820). Thereafter, the proxy agent 814 transmits the prepared data via a socket 804B to route data packets to a user space driver 822 via the TCP/IP 806/808 and a separate BSD network interface 810B. Again, the data is passed through the socket 804B. This is a third domain crossing, with validation and context switching penalties.
Inside the kernel, the data is divided/copied/moved for delivery via the TCP/IP stack 806/808 to a BSD network interface 810B. The steps of The BSD network interface 810B routes the data to a virtual driver 812B. These steps introduce additional buffering delays as well as improper buffer sizing issues such as buffer bloat.
Finally, the virtual driver 812B reroutes the data to the user space driver (e.g., a Universal Serial Bus (USB) driver), which requires another socket transfer from 804B to 804C; the data crosses into the user space for the user based driver 822, and crosses the domain a fifth time to be routed out the USB Hardware (H/W) driver 824. Each of these domain crossings are subject to the validation and context switching penalties as well as any buffering issues.
As shown therein, an application 902 provides data via shared memory space file descriptor objects to the agent 904. The agent 904 internally processes the data via TCP/IP 906/908 to the tunneling function 910. Thereafter, the data is framed 912, cryptographically secured 914, and routed via TCP/IP 906/908 to the user driver 916. The user driver uses a channel I/O to communicate with nexus 918 for the one (and only) domain crossing into kernel space. Thereafter, the nexus 918 provides the data to the H/W driver 920.
When compared side-by-side, the user space networking stack 900 has only one (1) domain crossing, compared to the traditional networking stack 800 which crossed domains five (5) times for the identical VPN operation. Moreover, each of the user space applications could directly pass data via function calls within user memory space between each of the intermediary applications, rather than relying on the kernel based generic mbuf divide/copy/move scheme (and its associated buffering inefficiencies).
While the foregoing discussion provides an anecdotal illustration of the various performance enhancements offered by user space networking, APPENDIX A includes actual performance metrics collected over a wide variety of operational scenarios.
Flow Classification
In traditional communications stack implementations (e.g., a legacy BSD communications stack), user space data is written to the socket in a “bulk data” format (without packetization, TCP/IP headers, or other communication protocol information). Subsequent to being written to the socket, the user space data is read by a kernel process and packaged into packets for transfer via e.g., the BSD communication stack. These traditional communications stack implementations were generally considered “trusted” as the user space would not have access to, inter alia, the generation of network addresses used for the actual packet transfer. In other words, packet addressing was handled by the kernel space which is considered more secure than user space.
In order to improve operation, a traditional BSD communication stack may create metadata in the kernel that enabled quick access to e.g., frequently used and/or important data (e.g., TCP/IP headers, etc.). Notably, in a traditional BSD communications stack, kernel space metadata can be created from user space data (and/or user space metadata) in mbufs. The kernel does not distinguish (or treat differently) user space data and user space metadata, as both are transferred via generic mbuf data structures. For example, TCP/IP metadata (e.g., source and/or destination tuples (address, port), etc.) may be implicitly or explicitly set by the user space application via socket APIs. The TCP/IP metadata stays in the socket metadata, and can be directly parsed by the kernel from mbufs. The TCP/IP metadata resides in kernel-only memory and is only modifiable via socket APIs.
Within the context of the present disclosure, user space communication stacks can generate packets and metadata within the user space. However, the packets and metadata generated from the user space cannot be trusted by the kernel (see e.g., co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/146,324 filed Sep. 28, 2018 and entitled “Methods and ApPARATUS FOR PREVENTING PACKET SPOOFING WITH USER SPACE COMMUNICATION STACKS”, the contents of which being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety). As described therein, software applications in the user space are restricted for security and stability reasons.
More directly, the metadata generated within user space may be useful for kernel operation, however using the user space metadata directly in the kernel may introduce potential security and stability issues. For example, if the kernel were to use metadata generated within the user space, it may open itself to illegal memory accesses, which can result in various memory problems (e.g., see Existing Network Socket Technologies for discussion of other potential issues supra).
Additionally, BSD packets and metadata are hardware agnostic. The BSD communications stack implementation was designed to accommodate any hardware platform; however, the BSD packets and metadata are likely not optimized for the particular hardware platform it is executed from. In fact, traditional communications stack implementations (e.g., a BSD stack) may even be designed for different design assumptions e.g., where memory is expensive and processors word sizes are smaller (e.g., 32-bit architecture). Such characteristics and associated design may be suboptimal and inefficient in modern systems. For instance, metadata generated by a user space communications stacks may not align to the “natural word boundaries” of a modern processor cache (e.g., 64-bit architecture).
Referring now to
The exemplary system 1000 may be implemented through the use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., a computer-readable apparatus) which may be embodied as software, hardware, or combinations of the foregoing. The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include one or more computer programs with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by, for example, one or more processing apparatus may implement one or more of the methodologies described subsequently herein. Moreover, while a specific architecture is shown in
As shown in
Consider an exemplary usage scenario where a communications stack application 1002C within user space opens a channel 1004C in order to transact data. In the illustrated embodiment, the communications stack 1004C writes a user generated packet from a corresponding application 1002 into one of the pool of dedicated resources 1006C associated with the respective application 1004C (transaction 1052).
Initially, when the user space application generates a packet, the kernel allocates and creates: a metadata kernel object (MDK), and a metadata user object (MDU). Initially, the MDU (written by the user space) may be copied into an MDK data structure. More directly, the user space only has access to the MDU, whereas the kernel space has access to both the MDU and MDK. The MDU and MDK are “parallel” but distinct objects; thus, only certain fields within the objects are transferred during a write from user space to kernel space (internalizing data from the MDU to the MDK) and reads from kernel space to user space (externalizing data from the MDK to the MDU). However, the MDK must be sanitized before it can be used in the kernel space at transaction 1054.
As used herein, the term “sanitize”, “sanitization”, and/or “sanitizing” refers to a process of ensuring that data conforms to the privileges and/or requirements of the kernel and/or the user space. For example, when internalizing data from the MDU to the MDK, the data may be checked for appropriate formatting, validity, and/or malicious content (e.g., to avoid security and stability issues as discussed supra). Similarly, when externalizing data from the MDK to the MDU, the data may be checked to ensure that kernel private flags, values, and/or other sensitive information are not unintentionally exposed.
If the MDK is successfully sanitized, then the flow classifier 1014 generates an optimized MDK from the sanitized MDK (transaction 1056). For example, the MDK may be re-written to “naturally align” with the “natural word boundaries” of the processor cache.
As a brief aside, processor architectures perform memory accesses most efficiently when the data address is a multiple of the data size; this property is referred to as “natural alignment”. For example, data structures are “naturally aligned” for a 32-bit processor when the data structure's data addresses are multiples of 32-bit words. Similarly, data structures that are addressable in multiples of 64-bit words are naturally aligned for 64-bit processors. By extension, a 64-bit processor that accesses data structures with data addresses that are multiples of 32-bit words are not naturally aligned. As used herein, the term “natural word boundary” refers to memory locations in computer memory that are “naturally aligned”.
In some cases, the flow classifier 1014 may also generate other kernel-specific metadata. Notably, the kernel space metadata (MDK) and the user space metadata (MDU) are “parallel” but distinct objects in the exemplary embodiment. Specifically, the MDU can be used to share information with the kernel, but the kernel space MDK is never shared with the user space. The user space can continue to modify and/or update the MDU and the kernel space can independently modify the MDK without propagating changes to the MDU. As a result, the MDK can be modified in view of other system considerations without leaking privileged information back to the user space application.
In one exemplary embodiment, the kernel may refer to the MDU during internalization phases; thereafter (assuming the MDU passes all validations) only the MDK of the packet is used by kernel. More directly, once a packet is internalized, the kernel only uses the MDK until the packet is externalized.
In one exemplary embodiment, the kernel may refer to the MDU during externalization phases, when packet data/ownership is provided to the user process. During externalization, the MDU is initialized to reflect the state of the packet according to its MDK.
While the foregoing process is described in the context of an internalization/externalization scheme, other implementations may use more or less granular permissions and/or controls. For example, in other embodiments certain packet data modifications may be sanitized and/or propagated into the MDK, thereby allowing the kernel space to dynamically benefit from the user space application MDU updates and/or vice versa.
Additionally, the flow classifier may re-organize the MDK contents based on various other considerations (e.g., any hardware and/or software considerations). In some cases, certain types of metadata may be higher priority and/or more frequently accessed than other information. For example, the TCP/IP address header may be a particularly valuable and frequently accessed information. The MDK metadata can be re-arranged so that the TCP/IP header can be easily accessed. Subsequent accesses to the kernel space MDK may be made, by e.g., the flow switch 1008 without accessing either the MDU or the packet data itself. In other words, by providing an easily accessible and secure location for kernel specific metadata, overall kernel operation can be greatly improved.
Referring now to
The exemplary MDU object 1108 includes user space metadata 1110 and one or more buflets 1112. Each buflet may contain a pointer or index to portions of user space data that are stored in buffers 1114. The flow classifier sanitizes the MDU object (and/or user space data) and generates an MDK object 1116 therefrom. The MDK object 1116 includes sanitized user space metadata 1118, and may include additional kernel space classifications and/or metadata 1120 and/or the buflets 1112. In this way, the MDK metadata is related but distinct from the MDU metadata and the backing data buffers are not duplicated. The kernel space classifications and/or metadata 1120 may be generated within the kernel space for the internal use of flow classifier as discussed supra.
In some embodiments, the MDU and/or MDK may use different types of reference data structures. For example, in some variants the MDU uses indices (an offset from a baseline address) to point to its corresponding buffer object(s). Index based addressing within the allocated user space region may be more efficient and secure, since the user space application should only have access to objects within its allocated region. In contrast, the MDK may use pointers which can be efficiently used in kernel space (and which does not have the same access restrictions).
As previously noted, classifications and/or metadata can be re-organized, naturally aligned, and/or further modified.
In contrast, the kernel space metadata 1204 depicts how the same metadata (and/or sanitized or otherwise modified versions thereof) may be re-aligned to fit within e.g., 64-bit “natural boundaries” and/or re-organized according to frequency of use or importance, as discussed supra. As shown therein, the data is re-aligned so as to suit a 64-bit processor architecture. For example, metadata A is read from a 32-bit packing and placed at the naturally aligned 64-bit address 0; the remaining bits are padded with null data (e.g., zeros). Metadata C is unpacked from multiple 32-bit words, re-organized, and naturally aligned to the 64-bit address 64. Metadata C′ is padded so as to ensure that metadata B is naturally aligned to the 64-bit address 192.
As used herein, the term “packing” and/or “packed” refers to techniques and/or methods to reduce the size of a data structure. A packed data structure generally has very little (if any) null information, and in some cases may even be compressed, decimated, or otherwise lossy/loss-less encoded. In contrast, the term “padding” and/or “padded” refers to techniques and/or methods to add bits (e.g., null bits or redundant bits) to a data structure so as to e.g., achieve a certain size or other desirable property (e.g., error correction, parity, etc.)
Various embodiments of the present disclosure optimize object allocations to improve cache operation.
Notably, the packed metadata storage of
Referring now to
In one exemplary embodiment, a classifier process parses user space metadata and buffers to extract information indicative of the payload and/or how the payload will be used. For example, a classifier may determine whether user space data includes TCP/IP packets; if TCP/IP packets are present, the classifier may additionally extract e.g., tuple information (addresses, ports, etc.) In some variants, the classifier may also perform validations to ensure the packet is of the correct format (e.g., the protocol headers identify a valid length, and the packet is not malformed, etc.). In addition, the classifier may perform other protocol specific checks: e.g., version checks, etc.
In one exemplary embodiment, user space packets are associated with: a metadata kernel object (MDK), and a metadata user object (MDU). These parallel but distinct objects are created as part of the initial packet allocation process. In some variants, the MDU packet object may include, for example, user space metadata and buflets with indexes to user data in a buffer. In one exemplary variant, the MDK packet object may include, for example, a copy of user space metadata and buflets with pointers to the user data in a buffer.
At operation 1510 of the method 1500, a user space packet is written to a pool of resources within the kernel space. In one exemplary embodiment, the packet is generated within a user space communication stack having a different level of trust from the kernel space. While the various aspects of the present disclosure are directed to the aforementioned user space communication stack, artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts given the contents of the present disclosure, will readily appreciate that the principles described herein may be used in any system having tiered privileges and/or trust levels. For example, other systems may have different levels of trust assigned to e.g., first party, second party, and/or third party applications running on the device.
In one such implementation, the MDK data object is related to, but distinct from the MDU data object. For example, the relationship between MDU and MDK may enable subsequent changes to the MDU to be propagated to the MDK. However, the MDU is distinct from the MDK and changes to the MDK may or may not be reflected in the MDU. In other words, the related but distinct relationship between MDU and MDK enables a one-way transfer of information from the user space to kernel space.
Still other variants may enable more or less permeability, for example user space data structures (e.g., the MDU) may be sanitized and directly used in kernel space. In other examples, the data structure (e.g., MDK) may be created and entirely stored in kernel space; the user space application can only access the data structure via a fixed set of function calls (e.g., APIs) that limit control. Still other implementations that use a hybridization of the foregoing may be substituted by artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts, given the contents of the present disclosure.
In some embodiments, the MDK may be created in a variety of different ways consistent with the present disclosure. For example, instead of copying and sanitizing an MDU into the MDK, the MDK can use a pointer to the MDU for any MDU data. In other words, the MDK would reference MDU data rather than a copy thereof. Such variants would reduce the memory size of the data packet objects, however dereferencing the MDK pointer to read the MDU requires more computational steps. In related variants, the MDK can use other forms of reference instead of pointers. For example, the MDK can provide address offsets in the MDU for MDU data. Reading MDU offsets may also require more resources and may not be optimized for cache operation.
In yet another variant, instead of using MDU metadata, a flow switch and/or flow classifier (or other kernel entity) can independently generate metadata for the MDK (e.g., the flow switch may independently determine a TCP/IP header information, etc.). Such variants may require that the kernel entities duplicates work that was done by the user space communications stack (which may be less efficient), however independent operation may provide other benefits (e.g., more security, fewer context switches, etc.)
At operation 1520, the user space packet (or a copy thereof) is sanitized by the flow classification process. In one exemplary embodiment, a flow classifier may e.g., ensure that the MDK copy of user space metadata is appropriately formatted, validated, and/or scrubbed for malicious content. In one such variant, the MDK copy of user space metadata can only be used in kernel space after it has been sanitized.
For example, the user space metadata may include e.g., a TCP/IP header. During sanitization, the TCP/IP header may be checked to ensure that it is properly formatted (e.g., it contains a source port, a destination port, a sequence number, an acknowledgement number, data offset, checksum, etc.). The TCP/IP header may also be checked to ensure that the values are valid values and that the values have not been tampered with. For example, that the TCP/IP header has not been changed mid-session and does not exhibit potentially malicious traits.
While the foregoing embodiments describe validating the MDK packet objects associated with the packet, other portions of the packet or operation may also be validated. In some such variants, the MDU packet object may also be checked and/or sanitized so as to e.g., detect malfunctioning behavior and/or ensure that the user space application has not been compromised by malicious activity. In still other examples, the contents of the packet itself and/or the source or destination applications may be verified and/or validated, the user space communication stack(s) may be checked for acceptable operation, and/or the kernel may also verify that its internal processes are operating normally.
Still other variants may verify that other aspects of the system e.g., network connectivity are behaving correctly. More generally, any number of validations and/or verifications may be substituted by artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts, given the contents of the present disclosure.
At operation 1530, the flow classifier, flow switch, and/or other kernel entity may further augment and/or generate kernel space metadata.
In one exemplary embodiment, the kernel space classification populates the kernel space metadata. Common examples of kernel space metadata may include without limitation: e.g., transmission status, system wide information, priority information, kernel specific information, and/or any other common classification or categorization. For example, in the context of the present disclosure, the kernel manages and load balances a plurality of different user space communication stacks. Transmission status information (e.g., transmission attempts, retransmission attempts, and/or network congestion, etc.) could be used to infer system activity, and thus may not be provided to the user space communication stack for security and/or privacy reasons. Similarly, each of the individual user space communication stack may be assigned different priorities by the kernel (e.g., a user facing application may be more critical for user experience versus e.g., a daemon or other background tasks). For a variety of privacy considerations, priority information is hidden from the user space communication stacks. More generally, it is appreciated that user space communication stacks should be limited in their exposure to kernel activity.
In one exemplary embodiment, the kernel space metadata may additionally be re-organized and/or re-arranged according to various considerations. Kernel space metadata is only accessible by the kernel, and so data may be arranged in any number of ways that reduces kernel load. In one such variant, kernel space metadata is padded and naturally aligned with natural word boundaries of the processor and/or a local cache. Other common optimizations may seek to e.g., reduce memory footprint, reduce processing complexity, reduce power consumption, improve error rejection, and/or any number of other functions.
In some embodiments, a processor system may include multiple different processors and/or multiple different local caches. For example, one common asymmetric multi-processor architecture is a 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) that is paired with one or more 32-bit digital signal processors (DSPs) and/or secure processors (e.g., processors that execute from secure enclaves). Under such asymmetric multi-processor implementations, the natural word boundaries of one processor do not align with the word boundaries of the other processor. In one such variant, kernel space metadata may be aligned according to the processor cache combination that is most likely to access the metadata. In other such implementations, the metadata may be aligned according to the processor cache combination which results in the lowest average penalty. Still other implementations may balance a variety of tradeoffs between the processors; for example, optimizing for a general purpose processor may come at the expense of a hardware accelerator and vice versa.
At step 1540, the kernel space metadata may be used directly by the kernel to carry out the user space communication stack operation without requiring further accesses to the user space data. For example, subsequent flow switch and/or driver accesses for a TCP/IP header during network communications can be made from the kernel space metadata rather than the user space metadata.
In one exemplary embodiment, any kernel space entity can access an optimized version of the kernel space metadata. In one exemplary variant, an optimized version of kernel space metadata is cache optimized so as to maximize cache hits (where repeated requests for metadata can be served from the local cache memory). Other variants may optimize e.g., memory footprint, processing complexity, power consumption, error rejection, and/or any number of other functions.
Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide kernel space processes with kernel space metadata and user space processes with user space metadata. This provides a plethora of benefits; for example, rather than parsing the contents out of a packet buffer many times (which could be poorly organized, scattered across protocol headers in the packet buffer, and/or not-naturally aligned), the classifier uses a single access to organize the metadata in a fashion that is optimized based on a variety of system considerations. Subsequent accesses can reap the benefits of the optimized metadata structure throughout the lifetime of the packet.
Moreover, since user space metadata and kernel space metadata are separate, the various embodiments described herein may optimize each format differently. For example, user space metadata may use index values for fast and secure access within the user space region, whereas kernel space metadata can use pointer values to enable simplified access to data regardless of which user process accesses the kernel space metadata. Additionally, the inherent parallel but distinct data structure ensures that data transfers between user space and kernel space can be carefully monitored and validated.
Artisans of ordinary skill in the related arts will readily appreciate the myriad of efficiencies made possible by the techniques described herein. For example, forwarding packets between interfaces can greatly leverage the user space and kernel space metadata, rather than e.g., parsing protocol header at various layers.
It will be recognized that while certain embodiments of the present disclosure are described in terms of a specific sequence of steps of a method, these descriptions are only illustrative of the broader methods described herein, and may be modified as required by the particular application. Certain steps may be rendered unnecessary or optional under certain circumstances. Additionally, certain steps or functionality may be added to the disclosed embodiments, or the order of performance of two or more steps permuted. All such variations are considered to be encompassed within the disclosure and claimed herein.
While the above detailed description has shown, described, and pointed out novel features as applied to various embodiments, it will be understood that various omissions, substitutions, and changes in the form and details of the device or process illustrated may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from principles described herein. The foregoing description is of the best mode presently contemplated. This description is in no way meant to be limiting, but rather should be taken as illustrative of the general principles described herein. The scope of the disclosure should be determined with reference to the claims.
This application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/649,509 filed Mar. 28, 2018 and entitled “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR EFFICIENT DATA TRANSFER WITHIN USER SPACE NETWORKING STACK INFRASTRUCTURES”, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5367688 | Croll | Nov 1994 | A |
| 7100020 | Brightman | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7398382 | Rothman et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7506084 | Moerti et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7587575 | Moertl et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7590817 | Moertl et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7617377 | Moertl et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7941682 | Adams | May 2011 | B2 |
| 8230248 | Dance et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8239947 | Glick | Aug 2012 | B1 |
| 8255725 | Shimazaki et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8352624 | Zimmerman et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8555099 | Marinkovic et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8561090 | Schneider | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8769168 | Moertl et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 9170957 | Touzni et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9280360 | Xu et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9594718 | Kaushik et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9959124 | Herbeck et al. | May 2018 | B1 |
| 10078361 | Sanghi | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10678432 | Dreier | Jun 2020 | B1 |
| 20010037410 | Gardner | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020169938 | Scott et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030061395 | Kingsbury et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120935 | Teal | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20080005794 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148291 | Huang et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20090092057 | Doctor | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017655 | Gooding et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100049876 | Pope | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20110035575 | Kwon et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110083002 | Albers et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219208 | Asaad et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120260017 | Mine et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20130347131 | Mooring | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140189057 | Sankoda et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140355606 | Riddoch | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150081985 | Archer et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150261588 | Liu et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363110 | Batra et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160063258 | Ackerly | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160103480 | Sanghi | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20170124327 | Kumbhar | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170147282 | Seo | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170187621 | Shalev | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170264497 | Lim | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170286322 | Garg | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170337588 | Chittilappilly | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170371591 | Xia et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180081829 | Kaplan | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180196648 | Henderson | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180219805 | MacNeil | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180253315 | Norton | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20180285561 | Frank | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20190052659 | Weingarten | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190065301 | Tsirkin | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190097938 | Talla | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190286466 | Tsirkin | Sep 2019 | A1 |
| 20190303204 | Masputra | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20190303221 | Masputra | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20200019695 | Sovio | Jan 2020 | A1 |
| 20200073829 | Tsirkin | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20210011856 | Xia | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190303576 A1 | Oct 2019 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62649509 | Mar 2018 | US |
