linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] xsk: fix __xsk_generic

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: <Z7yXhHezJTgYh76T@mini-arch>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:00:04 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
Cc: Wang Liang <wangliang74@...wei.com>, bjorn@...nel.org,
	magnus.karlsson@...el.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
	jonathan.lemon@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
	ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, yuehaibing@...wei.com,
	zhangchangzhong@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xsk: fix __xsk_generic_xmit() error code when cq is
 full

On 02/24, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 at 10:18, Wang Liang <wangliang74@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> > When the cq reservation is failed, the error code is not set which is
> > initialized to zero in __xsk_generic_xmit(). That means the packet is not
> > send successfully but sendto() return ok.
> >
> > Set the error code and make xskq_prod_reserve_addr()/xskq_prod_reserve()
> > return values more meaningful when the queue is full.
> 
> Hi Wang,
> 
> I agree that this would have been a really good idea if it was
> implemented from day one, but now I do not dare to change this since
> it would be changing the uapi. Let us say you have the following quite
> common code snippet for sending a packet with AF_XDP in skb mode:
> 
> err = sendmsg();
> if (err && err != -EAGAIN && err != -EBUSY)
>     goto die_due_to_error;
> continue with code
> 
> This code would with your change go and die suddenly when the
> completion ring is full instead of working. Maybe there is a piece of
> code that cleans the completion ring after these lines of code and
> next time sendmsg() is called, the packet will get sent, so the
> application used to work.
> 
> So I say: let us not do this. But if anyone has another opinion, please share.

Can we return -EBUSY from this 'if (xsk_cq_reserve_addr_locked())' case as
well?