linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: devmem: support single IOV with sendmsg

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: <aC4OgpSHKf51wQS-@mini-arch>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 10:33:54 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	horms@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, shuah@...nel.org,
	sagi@...mberg.me, willemb@...gle.com, asml.silence@...il.com,
	jdamato@...tly.com, kaiyuanz@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: devmem: support single IOV with sendmsg

On 05/21, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:30 PM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > sendmsg() with a single iov becomes ITER_UBUF, sendmsg() with multiple
> > iovs becomes ITER_IOVEC. iter_iov_len does not return correct
> > value for UBUF, so teach to treat UBUF differently.
> >
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
> > Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
> > Fixes: bd61848900bf ("net: devmem: Implement TX path")
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/uio.h | 8 +++++++-
> >  net/core/datagram.c | 3 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/uio.h b/include/linux/uio.h
> > index 49ece9e1888f..393d0622cc28 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/uio.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/uio.h
> > @@ -99,7 +99,13 @@ static inline const struct iovec *iter_iov(const struct iov_iter *iter)
> >  }
> >
> >  #define iter_iov_addr(iter)    (iter_iov(iter)->iov_base + (iter)->iov_offset)
> > -#define iter_iov_len(iter)     (iter_iov(iter)->iov_len - (iter)->iov_offset)
> > +
> > +static inline size_t iter_iov_len(const struct iov_iter *i)
> > +{
> > +       if (i->iter_type == ITER_UBUF)
> > +               return i->count;
> > +       return iter_iov(i)->iov_len - i->iov_offset;
> > +}
> >
> 
> This change looks good to me from devmem perspective, but aren't you
> potentially breaking all these existing callers to iter_iov_len?
> 
> ackc -i iter_iov_len
> fs/read_write.c
> 846:                                            iter_iov_len(iter), ppos);
> 849:                                            iter_iov_len(iter), ppos);
> 858:            if (nr != iter_iov_len(iter))
> 
> mm/madvise.c
> 1808:           size_t len_in = iter_iov_len(iter);
> 1838:           iov_iter_advance(iter, iter_iov_len(iter));
> 
> io_uring/rw.c
> 710:                    len = iter_iov_len(iter);
> 
> Or are you confident this change is compatible with these callers for
> some reason?
 
Pavel did go over all callers, see:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7f06216e-1e66-433e-a247-2445dac22498@gmail.com/

> Maybe better to handle this locally in zerocopy_fill_skb_from_devmem,
> and then follow up with a more ambitious change that streamlines how
> all the iters behave.

Yes, I can definitely do that, but it seems a bit strange that the
callers need to distinguish between IOVEC and UBUF (which is a 1-entry
IOVEC), so having working iter_iov_len seems a bit cleaner.