[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87twpvmk57.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:07:16 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issue with /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 11:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I tried on linux-4.1:
>> > linux:~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem
>> > 8388608 12582912 16777216
>> > linux:~# echo 1234 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem
>> > -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
>> > linux:~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem
>> > 1234 12582912 16777216
>> >
>> > the echo operation got error, but value already written to tcp_mem.
>> >
>> > I checked, patch f594d63199688ad568fb caused the issue.
>>
>>
>> If your problem is that you can not write a single value and instead
>> have to write all three values I don't know what to tell you. I don't
>> see how that could have ever worked.
>>
>> Certainly the commit you pointed at did not change that behavior.
>
> I would not be so sure.
> Above commit added a regression for partial writes.
> If a write() returns an error like EINVAL, we expect no change occurred.
>
> Prior code was calling proc_doulongvec_minmax() using a temporary array,
> and updated tcp_mem[0 .. 2] only of proc_doulongvec_minmax() returned 0
>
> ret = proc_doulongvec_minmax(&tmp, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> // deleted for clarity
> #endif
>
> net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_mem[0] = vec[0];
> net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_mem[1] = vec[1];
> net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_mem[2] = vec[2];
>
> return 0;
>
> We could argue it is a bug in proc_doulongvec_minmax().
> This helper probably should allocate a temp buffer,
> as we have the same issue with udp_mem[].
Point. We do store the value on partial writes when before we did not.
That is weird. Clearly someone noticed. I agree this is a confusing
corner case in proc_doulongvec_minmax that it may be worth addressing.
Does this cause a regression in a real application? I definitely would
like to know what in the world a real application is doing that causes
it to break with this difference in behavior before doing anything,
because I am dense enough not to see how an application could
meaningfully care about this difference in behavior.
Eric
--
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