[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <358628f8-a296-ad0e-985b-307895ed5520@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:22:11 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hannes@...essinduktion.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tuntap: raise EPOLLOUT on device up
On 2018年05月22日 06:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:47:42AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 21:00:43 +0800
>>
>>> We return -EIO on device down but can not raise EPOLLOUT after it was
>>> up. This may confuse user like vhost which expects tuntap to raise
>>> EPOLLOUT to re-enable its TX routine after tuntap is down. This could
>>> be easily reproduced by transmitting packets from VM while down and up
>>> the tap device. Fixing this by set SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE on -EIO.
>>>
>>> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
>>> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>> Fixes: 1bd4978a88ac2 ("tun: honor IFF_UP in tun_get_user()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> I'm no so sure what to do with this patch.
>>
>> Like Michael says, this flag bit is only checks upon transmit which
>> may or may not happen after this point. It doesn't seem to be
>> guaranteed.
The flag is checked in tun_chr_poll() as well.
> Jason, can't we detect a link up transition and respond accordingly?
> What do you think?
>
I think we've already tried to do this, in tun_net_open() we call
write_space(). But the problem is the bit may not be set at that time.
A second thought is to set the bit in tun_chr_poll() instead of -EIO like:
diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
index d45ac37..46a1573 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -1423,6 +1423,13 @@ static void tun_net_init(struct net_device *dev)
dev->max_mtu = MAX_MTU - dev->hard_header_len;
}
+static bool tun_sock_writeable(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file
*tfile)
+{
+ struct sock *sk = tfile->socket.sk;
+
+ return (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP) && sock_writeable(sk);
+}
+
/* Character device part */
/* Poll */
@@ -1445,10 +1452,9 @@ static __poll_t tun_chr_poll(struct file *file,
poll_table *wait)
if (!ptr_ring_empty(&tfile->tx_ring))
mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
- if (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
- (sock_writeable(sk) ||
- (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE,
&sk->sk_socket->flags) &&
- sock_writeable(sk))))
+ if (tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile) ||
+ (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE,
&sk->sk_socket->flags) &&
+ tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile)));
mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
if (tun->dev->reg_state != NETREG_REGISTERED)
Does this make more sense?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists