netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] RDS: deliver zerocopy completion notification with data as an optimization

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:26:46 -0500
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] RDS: deliver zerocopy completion notification
 with data as an optimization

On (02/21/18 18:45), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> I do mean returning 0 instead of -EAGAIN if control data is ready.
> Something like
> 
> @@ -611,7 +611,8 @@ int rds_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size,
> 
>                 if (!rds_next_incoming(rs, &inc)) {
>                         if (nonblock) {
> -                               ret = -EAGAIN;
> +                               ncookies = rds_recvmsg_zcookie(rs, msg);
> +                               ret = ncookies ? 0 : -EAGAIN;
>                                 break;
>                         }

Yes, but you now have an implicit branch based on ncookies, so I'm
not sure it saved all that much? like I said let me revisit this

> By the way, the put_cmsg is unconditional even if the caller did
> not supply msg_control. So it is basically no longer safe to ever
> call read, recv or recvfrom on a socket if zerocopy notifications
> are outstanding.

Wait, I thought put_cmsg already checks for these things. 

> It is possible to check msg_controllen before even deciding whether
> to try to dequeue notifications (and take the lock). I see that this is
> not common. But RDS of all cases seems to do this, in
> rds_notify_queue_get:

yes the comment above that code suggests that this bit of code
was done to avoid calling put_cmsg while holding the rs_lock.

One bit of administrivia though- if I now drop sk_error_queue for
PF_RDS, I'll have to fix selftests in the same patch too, so the
patch will get a bit bulky (and thus a bit more difficult to review).