[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527A391B.4050907@secunet.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:42:03 +0100
From: Mathias Krause <mathias.krause@...unet.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Dmitry Tarnyagin <dmitry.tarnyagin@...kless.no>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: allow to leave the buffer fragmented
in skb_cow_data()
On 06.11.2013 10:52, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:49:18AM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
>> On 06.11.2013 10:30, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>>> Hang on, you haven't explained why it is OK to write to pages.
>> Why wouldn't it if the skb isn't cloned?
>
> Because if it's owned by an entity outside our stack (e.g., virt
> host or app) then the skb itself won't be cloned.
Ok.
>>> What if said page is owned by the virt host or some app?
>> How would one detect such a case. I could image not by testing
>> skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags as it is right now?
>
> You can't. That's why we always copy.
Well, skb_cow_data() will only copy, i.e. call __pskb_pull_tail(), in
case the skb is either cloned or fragmented. As you already said it
won't be cloned in your case. Does it contain fragments, i.e. is
skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags != 0? If not, we won't copy with the current
code either.
We *will* copy, though, if we're expected to expand the tailroom. That
won't change in my patch as we'll linearize the skb in that case -- even
if there would enough room in the skb. That's needed to not hit the
SKB_LINEAR_ASSERT(skb) in skb_put().
> If you want to do this
> properly then we'll need to add at least a bit to indicate whether
> the page originated from within the network stack and we have
> full ownership.
Can you please explain why this would be needed? I still don't get the
reasoning behind "pages are considered not writable at the moment even
if they are anonymous".
skb_cow_data() is only used in those places:
- net/caif/cfpkt_skbuff.c
- net/ipv4/ah4.c
- net/ipv4/esp4.c
- net/ipv6/ah6.c
- net/ipv6/esp6.c
- net/rxrpc/rxkad.c
Can you explain how this change would be a problem for them?
Thanks,
Mathias
--
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