linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] 9p/net: share pooled receive buffers size exception in p9_tag

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: <2221747.x32gLWZWRm@silver>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 19:06:13 +0100
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
To:     v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc:     Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] 9p/net: share pooled receive buffers size exception in
 p9_tag_alloc

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 8:50:20 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> The async RPC code will also use an automatic size and this bit of code
> can be shared, as p9_tag_alloc still knows what client we alloc for.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>

Reviewed-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>

> ---
>  net/9p/client.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
> index 53ebd07c36ee..4e5238db4a7a 100644
> --- a/net/9p/client.c
> +++ b/net/9p/client.c
> @@ -282,8 +282,15 @@ p9_tag_alloc(struct p9_client *c, int8_t type, uint t_size, uint r_size,
>  			    t_size ?: p9_msg_buf_size(c, type, fmt, apc));
>  	va_end(apc);
>  
> -	alloc_rsize = min_t(size_t, c->msize,
> -			    r_size ?: p9_msg_buf_size(c, type + 1, fmt, ap));
> +	/* Currently RDMA transport is excluded from response message size
> +	 * optimization, as it cannot cope with it due to its pooled response
> +	 * buffers (this has no impact on request size)
> +	 */
> +	if (r_size == 0 && c->trans_mod->pooled_rbuffers)
> +		alloc_rsize = c->msize;
> +	else
> +		alloc_rsize = min_t(size_t, c->msize,
> +				    r_size ?: p9_msg_buf_size(c, type + 1, fmt, ap));
>  
>  	if (!req)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> @@ -728,18 +735,10 @@ p9_client_rpc(struct p9_client *c, int8_t type, const char *fmt, ...)
>  	int sigpending, err;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	struct p9_req_t *req;
> -	/* Passing zero for tsize/rsize to p9_client_prepare_req() tells it to
> -	 * auto determine an appropriate (small) request/response size
> -	 * according to actual message data being sent. Currently RDMA
> -	 * transport is excluded from this response message size optimization,
> -	 * as it would not cope with it, due to its pooled response buffers
> -	 * (using an optimized request size for RDMA as well though).
> -	 */
> -	const uint tsize = 0;
> -	const uint rsize = c->trans_mod->pooled_rbuffers ? c->msize : 0;
>  
>  	va_start(ap, fmt);
> -	req = p9_client_prepare_req(c, type, tsize, rsize, fmt, ap);
> +	/* auto determine an appropriate request/response size */
> +	req = p9_client_prepare_req(c, type, 0, 0, fmt, ap);
>  	va_end(ap);
>  	if (IS_ERR(req))
>  		return req;
>