[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515D3235.7080608@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:56:37 +0800
From: dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Sven Joachim <svenjoac@....de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Karel Srot <ksrot@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] af_unix: If we don't care about credentials coallesce
all messages
On 2013/4/4 10:14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> It was reported that the following LSB test case failed
> https://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=2144 because we
> were not coallescing unix stream messages when the application was
> expecting us to.
>
> The problem was that the first send was before the socket was accepted
> and thus sock->sk_socket was NULL in maybe_add_creds, and the second
> send after the socket was accepted had a non-NULL value for sk->socket
> and thus we could tell the credentials were not needed so we did not
> bother.
>
> The unnecessary credentials on the first message cause
> unix_stream_recvmsg to start verifying that all messages had the same
> credentials before coallescing and then the coallescing failed because
> the second message had no credentials.
>
> Ignoring credentials when we don't care in unix_stream_recvmsg fixes a
> long standing pessimization which would fail to coallesce messages when
> reading from a unix stream socket if the senders were different even if
> we did not care about their credentials.
>
> I have tested this and verified that the in the LSB test case mentioned
> above that the messages do coallesce now, while the were failing to
> coallesce without this change.
>
> Reported-by: Karel Srot <ksrot@...hat.com>
> Reported-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> ---
> net/unix/af_unix.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> index f153a8d..2db702d 100644
> --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
> +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ again:
> if ((UNIXCB(skb).pid != siocb->scm->pid) ||
> (UNIXCB(skb).cred != siocb->scm->cred))
> break;
> - } else {
> + } else if (test_bit(SOCK_PASSCRED, &sock->flags)) {
> /* Copy credentials */
> scm_set_cred(siocb->scm, UNIXCB(skb).pid, UNIXCB(skb).cred);
> check_creds = 1;
>
As your opinion, I think the way is better:
if (test_bit(SOCK_PASSCRED, &sock->flags)) {
if (check_creds) {
/* Never glue messages from different writers */
if ((UNIXCB(skb).pid != siocb->scm->pid) ||
(UNIXCB(skb).cred != siocb->scm->cred))
break;
} else {
/* Copy credentials */
scm_set_cred(siocb->scm, UNIXCB(skb).pid, UNIXCB(skb).cred);
check_creds = 1;
}
}
Ding
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists