linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] sunrpc: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ab2bec0ee8ab792b9187248b05d4b2ff5b64acbf.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 19:07:08 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] sunrpc: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)
 rather then sendpage

On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 18:50 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 11:02 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > When transmitting data, call down into TCP using sendmsg with
> > MSG_SPLICE_PAGES to indicate that content should be spliced rather than
> > performing sendpage calls to transmit header, data pages and trailer.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> > Acked-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> > cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>
> > cc: Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>
> > cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> > cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> > cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> > cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> > cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
> > cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h | 11 +++++------
> >  net/sunrpc/svcsock.c       | 38 ++++++++++++--------------------------
> >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I'm seeing a regression in pynfs runs with v6.5-rc5. 3 tests are failing
> in a similar fashion. WRT1b is one of them
> 
> [vagrant@...yton-kdo-nfsd nfs4.0]$  ./testserver.py --rundeps --maketree --uid=0 --gid=0 localhost:/export/pynfs/4.0/ WRT1b                                                     
> **************************************************                                                                                                                              
> WRT1b    st_write.testSimpleWrite2                                : FAILURE                                                                                                     
>            READ returned                                                                                                                                                        
>            b'\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00',                                                                                                     
>            expected b'\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00write data'                                                                                                                           
> INIT     st_setclientid.testValid                                 : PASS                                                                                                        
> MKFILE   st_open.testOpen                                         : PASS                                                                                                        
> **************************************************                                                                                                                              
> Command line asked for 3 of 679 tests                                                                                                                                           
> Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 2 Passed                                                   

FWIW, here's a capture that shows the problem. See frames 109-112 in
particular. If no one has thoughts on this one, I'll plan to have a look
early next week.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>

Download attachment "nfs.pcap.xz" of type "application/x-xz" (3772 bytes)