[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1502724662.8411.53.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:31:02 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Matthew Dawson <matthew@...systems.ca>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] datagram: When peeking datagrams with offset < 0
don't skip empty skbs
On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 11:03 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > I'm actually surprised that only unix sockets can have negative values. Is
> > there a reason for that? I had assumed that sk_set_peek_off would allow
> > negative values as the code already has to support negative values due to what
> > the initial value is.
>
> A negative initial value indicates that PEEK_OFF is disabled. It only
> makes sense to peek from a positive offset from the start of the data.
With the current code, the user space can disable peeking with offset
setting a negative offset value, after that peeking with offset has
been enabled. But only for UNIX sockets. I think the same should be
allowed for UDP sockets.
> > > I'm wondering adding an explicit SOCK_PEEK_OFF/MSG_PEEK_OFF socket flag
> > > would help simplyifing the code:
>
> The behavior needs to be bifurcated between peeking with
> offset and without offset.
>
> When peeking with offset is enabled by setting SO_PEEK_OFF,
> subsequent reads do move the offset, so the observed behavior
> is correct.
>
> When sk->sk_peek_offset is negative, offset mode is disabled
> and the same packet must be read twice.
>
> An explicit boolean flag to discern between the two may make
> the code simpler to understand, not sure whether that is logically
> required.
Yes, an explicit PEEK_OFF flag is just to keep the code simpler, so
that there is no need to add checks at every sk_peek_offset() call site
and the relevant logic can be fully encapsulated under the MSG_PEEK
branch in __skb_try_recv_from_queue(), I think/hope.
It's not a functional requirement.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists