netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: make sure EPOLLOUT wont be missed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:40:59 -0400
From:   Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Vladimir Rutsky <rutsky@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: make sure EPOLLOUT wont be missed



On 8/17/19 12:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/17/19 4:19 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/17/19 12:26 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> As Jason Baron explained in commit 790ba4566c1a ("tcp: set SOCK_NOSPACE
>>> under memory pressure"), it is crucial we properly set SOCK_NOSPACE
>>> when needed.
>>>
>>> However, Jason patch had a bug, because the 'nonblocking' status
>>> as far as sk_stream_wait_memory() is concerned is governed
>>> by MSG_DONTWAIT flag passed at sendmsg() time :
>>>
>>>     long timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, flags & MSG_DONTWAIT);
>>>
>>> So it is very possible that tcp sendmsg() calls sk_stream_wait_memory(),
>>> and that sk_stream_wait_memory() returns -EAGAIN with SOCK_NOSPACE
>>> cleared, if sk->sk_sndtimeo has been set to a small (but not zero)
>>> value.
>>
>> Is MSG_DONTWAIT not set in this case? The original patch was intended
>> only for the explicit non-blocking case. The epoll manpage says:
>> "EPOLLET flag should use nonblocking file descriptors". So the original
>> intention was not to impact the blocking case. This seems to me like
>> a different use-case.
>>
> 
> I guess the problem is how we define 'non-blocking' ...
> 
> SO_SNDTIMEO can be used by application to implement a variation of non-blocking,
> by waiting for a socket event with a short timeout, to maybe recover
> from memory pressure conditions in a more efficient way than simply looping.
> 
> Note that the man page for epoll() only _suggests_ to use nonblocking file descriptors.
> 
> <quote>
>        The  suggested  way  to use epoll as an edge-triggered (EPOLLET)
>        interface is as follows:
> 
>               i   with nonblocking file descriptors; and
> 
>               ii  by  waiting  for  an  event  only  after  read(2)  or
>                   write(2) return EAGAIN.
> </quote>
> 
> 

Ok, seems reasonable:
Acked-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>

I found a similar pattern in net/smc/smc_tx.c, which I also just sent a
patch for.

Thanks,

-Jason