[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <671fcc57-5288-804a-ac9a-c23a79cf3125@kaspersky.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 17:41:07 +0300
From: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.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>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stsp2@...dex.ru" <stsp2@...dex.ru>,
"oxffffaa@...il.com" <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 04/19] af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop
On 13.05.2021 14:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:33:14PM +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>
>> ---
>> v8 -> v9:
>> 1) 'tmp_record_len' renamed to 'fragment_len'.
>> 2) MSG_TRUNC handled in af_vsock.c instead of transport.
>> 3) 'flags' still passed to transport for MSG_PEEK support.
> Ah, right I see, sorry for the wrong suggestion to remove it.
>
>> include/net/af_vsock.h | 4 +++
>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/af_vsock.h b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>> index b1c717286993..5175f5a52ce1 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. */
>> + ssize_t (*seqpacket_dequeue)(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct msghdr *msg,
>> + int flags, bool *msg_ready);
>> +
>> /* 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 c4f6bfa1e381..78b9af545ca8 100644
>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> @@ -1974,6 +1974,73 @@ 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;
>> + bool msg_ready;
>> + struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>> + ssize_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);
>> + msg_ready = false;
>> + record_len = 0;
>> +
>> + while (1) {
>> + ssize_t fragment_len;
>> +
>> + if (vsock_wait_data(sk, &wait, timeout, NULL, 0) <= 0) {
>> + /* In case of any loop break(timeout, signal
>> + * interrupt or shutdown), we report user that
>> + * nothing was copied.
>> + */
>> + err = 0;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + fragment_len = transport->seqpacket_dequeue(vsk, msg, flags, &msg_ready);
>> +
> So, IIUC, seqpacket_dequeue() must return the real length,
> and not the bytes copied, right?
>
> I'm not sure virtio_transport_seqpacket_do_dequeue() is doing that.
> I'll post a comment on that patch.
Ok, i'll check it
>
>> + if (fragment_len < 0) {
>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + record_len += fragment_len;
>> +
>> + if (msg_ready)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (sk->sk_err)
>> + err = -sk->sk_err;
>> + else if (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN)
>> + err = 0;
>> +
>> + if (msg_ready && err == 0) {
>> + /* User sets MSG_TRUNC, so return real length of
>> + * packet.
>> + */
>> + if (flags & MSG_TRUNC)
>> + err = record_len;
>> + else
>> + err = len - msg->msg_iter.count;
> I think is better to use msg_data_left(msg) instead of accessing fields.
Ack
>
>> +
>> + /* 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)
>> @@ -2029,7 +2096,10 @@ 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
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists