Message-ID: <558178CA.3010806@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:40:26 -0300
From:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sctp: add new getsockopt option SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_KERNEL

On 17-06-2015 10:16, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:40:32AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>> On 17-06-2015 09:20, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:38:10AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>>>> On 17-06-2015 07:21, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 07:42:31PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm trying to remove a direct dependency of dlm module on sctp one.
>>>>>> Currently dlm code is calling sctp_do_peeloff() directly and only this
>>>>>> call is causing the load of sctp module together with dlm. For that, we
>>>>>> have basically 3 options:
>>>>>> - Doing a module split on dlm
>>>>>>    - which I'm avoiding because it was already split and was merged (more
>>>>>>      info on patch2 changelog)
>>>>>>    - and the sctp code on it is rather small if compared with sctp module
>>>>>>      itself
>>>>>> - Using some other infra that gets indirectly activated, like getsockopt()
>>>>>>    - It was like this before, but the exposed sockopt created a file
>>>>>>      descriptor for the new socket and that create some serious issues.
>>>>>>      More info on 2f2d76cc3e93 ("dlm: Do not allocate a fd for peeloff")
>>>>>> - Doing something like ipv6_stub (which is used by vxlan) or similar
>>>>>>    - but I don't feel that's a good way out here, it doesn't feel right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm approaching this by going with 2nd option again but this time
>>>>>> also creating a new sockopt that is only accessible for kernel users of
>>>>>> this protocol, so that we are safe to directly return a struct socket *
>>>>>> via getsockopt() results. This is the tricky part of it of this series.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It smells hacky yes but currently most of sctp calls are wrapped behind
>>>>>> kernel_*(). Even if we set a flag (like netlink does) saying that this
>>>>>> is a kernel socket, we still have the issue of getting the function call
>>>>>> through and returning such non-usual return value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I kept __user marker on sctp_getsockopt_peeloff_kernel() prototype and
>>>>>> its helpers just to avoid issues with static checkers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kernel path not really tested yet.. mainly willing to know what do you
>>>>>> think, is this feasible? getsockopt option only reachable by kernel
>>>>>> itself? Couldn't find any other like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Marcelo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcelo Ricardo Leitner (2):
>>>>>>    sctp: add new getsockopt option SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_KERNEL
>>>>>>    dlm: avoid using sctp_do_peeloff directly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   fs/dlm/lowcomms.c         | 17 ++++++++---------
>>>>>>   include/uapi/linux/sctp.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>   net/sctp/socket.c         | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>   3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just use the existing PEELOFF socket option with the kernel_getsockopt
>>>>> interface, and sockfd_lookup to translate the returned value back to a socket
>>>>> struct?  That seems less redundant and less hack-ish to me.
>>>>
>>>> It was like that before commit 2f2d76cc3e93 ("dlm: Do not allocate a fd for
>>>> peeloff"), but it caused serious issues due to the fd allocation, so that's
>>>> what I'm willing to avoid now.
>>>>
>>>> References:
>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.drbd/22529
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075629 (this one is closed,
>>>> sorry)
>>>>
>>>>    Marcelo
>>>>
>>> Ah, I see.  You're using the new socket option as a differentiator to just skip
>>> the creation of an FD.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> I get your reasoning, but I'm still not in love with the idea of duplicating
>>> code paths to avoid that action.  Can we use some data inside the socket
>>> structure to do this differentiation?  Specifically here I'm thinking of
>>> sock->file.  IIRC that will be non-null for any sockets created in user space,
>>
>> I had thought about using some socket flags like netlink does but couldn't
>> get around with that. Hadn't thought about sock->file though, nice idea.
>>
>>> but will always be NULL for dlm created sockets (since we use sock_create
>>> directly to create them.  If that is a sufficient differentiator, then we can
>>> just optionally allocate the new socket fd for the peeled off socket, iff the
>>> parent sock->file pointer is non-null.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Neil
>>
>> We can re-use the current code path, by either checking it via sock->file or
>> via get_fs(). That will require us to change the option arg format so we
>> keep it nice and clean but as it would be kernel-side only, it should be ok
>> right? It currently is:
>>
>> typedef struct {
>>          sctp_assoc_t associd;
>>          int sd;
>> } sctp_peeloff_arg_t;
>>
>> And we would have to fit a pointer in there, something like:
>> typedef union {
>> 	struct {
>> 	        sctp_assoc_t associd;
>> 	        int sd;
>> 	};
>> 	void *sock;
>> } sctp_peeloff_arg_t;
>>
>> Sounds good?
>>
> Yes, sounds reasonable.
>
> Thanks!
> Neil

Cool, thanks Neil. I'll rework these now but will post the new version 
probably by next week only, as we can get dlm properly tested too.

Cheers,
Marcelo

--
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