linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v7 04/22] af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop

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]
Message-ID: <20210325093415.mpysybt5vfnsl7fg@steredhat>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:34:15 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stsp2@...dex.ru, oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 04/22] af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:10:03PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This adds receive loop for SEQPACKET. It looks like receive loop for
>STREAM, but there is a little bit difference:
>1) It doesn't call notify callbacks.
>2) It doesn't care about 'SO_SNDLOWAT' and 'SO_RCVLOWAT' values, because
>   there is no sense for these values in SEQPACKET case.
>3) It waits until whole record is received or error is found during
>   receiving.
>4) It processes and sets 'MSG_TRUNC' flag.
>
>So to avoid extra conditions for two types of socket inside one loop, two
>independent functions were created.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
>---
> v6 -> v7:
> 'seqpacket_get_len' callback now removed, length of message is returned
>  by 'seqpacket_dequeue' callback.
>
> include/net/af_vsock.h   |  4 ++
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/net/af_vsock.h b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>index b1c717286993..74ac8a4c4168 100644
>--- a/include/net/af_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>@@ -135,6 +135,10 @@ struct vsock_transport {
> 	bool (*stream_is_active)(struct vsock_sock *);
> 	bool (*stream_allow)(u32 cid, u32 port);
>
>+	/* SEQ_PACKET. */
>+	int (*seqpacket_dequeue)(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct msghdr *msg,
>+				 int flags, bool *msg_ready, size_t *record_len);
>+

Why not using ssize_t as return value and return the length or a 
negative value in case of error?

In this way we can remove the 'record_len' parameter.

> 	/* Notification. */
> 	int (*notify_poll_in)(struct vsock_sock *, size_t, bool *);
> 	int (*notify_poll_out)(struct vsock_sock *, size_t, bool *);
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>index 0bc661e54262..fa0c37f97330 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>@@ -1973,6 +1973,89 @@ static int __vsock_stream_recvmsg(struct sock 
>*sk, struct msghdr *msg,
> 	return err;
> }
>
>+static int __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
>*msg,
>+				     size_t len, int flags)
>+{
>+	const struct vsock_transport *transport;
>+	const struct iovec *orig_iov;
>+	unsigned long orig_nr_segs;
>+	bool msg_ready;
>+	struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>+	size_t record_len;
>+	long timeout;
>+	int err = 0;
>+	DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
>+
>+	vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
>+	transport = vsk->transport;
>+
>+	timeout = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
>+	orig_nr_segs = msg->msg_iter.nr_segs;
>+	orig_iov = msg->msg_iter.iov;
>+	msg_ready = false;
>+	record_len = 0;
>+
>+	while (1) {
>+		err = vsock_wait_data(sk, &wait, timeout, NULL, 0);
>+
>+		if (err <= 0) {
>+			/* In case of any loop break(timeout, signal
>+			 * interrupt or shutdown), we report user that
>+			 * nothing was copied.
>+			 */
>+			err = 0;
>+			break;
>+		}
>+
>+		err = transport->seqpacket_dequeue(vsk, msg, flags, &msg_ready, &record_len);
>+
>+		if (err < 0) {
>+			if (err == -EAGAIN) {
>+				iov_iter_init(&msg->msg_iter, READ,
>+					      orig_iov, orig_nr_segs,
>+					      len);
>+				/* Clear 'MSG_EOR' here, because dequeue
>+				 * callback above set it again if it was
>+				 * set by sender. This 'MSG_EOR' is from
>+				 * dropped record.
>+				 */
>+				msg->msg_flags &= ~MSG_EOR;
>+				record_len = 0;
>+				continue;
>+			}
>+
>+			err = -ENOMEM;
>+			break;
>+		}
>+
>+		if (msg_ready)
>+			break;
>+	}
>+
>+	if (sk->sk_err)
>+		err = -sk->sk_err;
>+	else if (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN)
>+		err = 0;
>+
>+	if (msg_ready) {

If 'err' is not 0, should we skip this branch?

>+		/* User sets MSG_TRUNC, so return real length of
>+		 * packet.
>+		 */
>+		if (flags & MSG_TRUNC)
>+			err = record_len;
>+		else
>+			err = len - msg->msg_iter.count;
>+
>+		/* Always set MSG_TRUNC if real length of packet is
>+		 * bigger than user's buffer.
>+		 */
>+		if (record_len > len)
>+			msg->msg_flags |= MSG_TRUNC;
>+	}
>+
>+	return err;
>+}
>+
> static int
> vsock_connectible_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
> 			  int flags)
>@@ -2028,7 +2111,10 @@ vsock_connectible_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
> 		goto out;
> 	}
>
>-	err = __vsock_stream_recvmsg(sk, msg, len, flags);
>+	if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
>+		err = __vsock_stream_recvmsg(sk, msg, len, flags);
>+	else
>+		err = __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(sk, msg, len, flags);
>
> out:
> 	release_sock(sk);
>-- 
>2.25.1
>