[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF=yD-+fCNGQyoRNAZngof3=_gGbHn9aSCQA_hNvFSsSZtZQxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:30:08 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net] af_packet: Block execution of tasks waiting for
transmit to complete in AF_PACKET
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index a29d66da7394..a7ca6a003ebe 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -2401,6 +2401,9 @@ static void tpacket_destruct_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>
> ts = __packet_set_timestamp(po, ph, skb);
> __packet_set_status(po, ph, TP_STATUS_AVAILABLE | ts);
> +
> + if (!packet_read_pending(&po->tx_ring))
> + complete(&po->skb_completion);
> }
>
> sock_wfree(skb);
> @@ -2585,7 +2588,7 @@ static int tpacket_parse_header(struct packet_sock *po, void *frame,
>
> static int tpacket_snd(struct packet_sock *po, struct msghdr *msg)
> {
> - struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
> struct net_device *dev;
> struct virtio_net_hdr *vnet_hdr = NULL;
> struct sockcm_cookie sockc;
> @@ -2600,6 +2603,7 @@ static int tpacket_snd(struct packet_sock *po, struct msghdr *msg)
> int len_sum = 0;
> int status = TP_STATUS_AVAILABLE;
> int hlen, tlen, copylen = 0;
> + long timeo = 0;
>
> mutex_lock(&po->pg_vec_lock);
>
> @@ -2646,12 +2650,21 @@ static int tpacket_snd(struct packet_sock *po, struct msghdr *msg)
> if ((size_max > dev->mtu + reserve + VLAN_HLEN) && !po->has_vnet_hdr)
> size_max = dev->mtu + reserve + VLAN_HLEN;
>
> + reinit_completion(&po->skb_completion);
> +
> do {
> ph = packet_current_frame(po, &po->tx_ring,
> TP_STATUS_SEND_REQUEST);
> if (unlikely(ph == NULL)) {
> - if (need_wait && need_resched())
> - schedule();
> + if (need_wait && skb) {
> + timeo = sock_sndtimeo(&po->sk, msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
> + timeo = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&po->skb_completion, timeo);
This looks really nice.
But isn't it still susceptible to the race where tpacket_destruct_skb
is called in between po->xmit and this
wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout?
The test for skb is shorthand for packet_read_pending != 0, right?
> + if (timeo <= 0) {
> + err = !timeo ? -ETIMEDOUT : -ERESTARTSYS;
> + goto out_put;
> + }
> + }
> + /* check for additional frames */
> continue;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists