netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] vhost/vsock: support MSG

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]

Message-ID: <20210824100053.jc2pgttgwq5sujvu@steredhat>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 12:00:53 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stsp2@...dex.ru, oxffffaa@...il.co
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:51:40AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>'MSG_EOR' handling has same logic as 'MSG_EOM' - if bit present

s/same/similar

>in packet's header, reset it to 0. Then restore it back if packet
>processing wasn't completed. Instead of bool variable for each
>flag, bit mask variable was added: it has logical OR of 'MSG_EOR'
>and 'MSG_EOM' if needed, to restore flags, this variable is ORed
>with flags field of packet.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>index feaf650affbe..d217955bbcd4 100644
>--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> 		size_t nbytes;
> 		size_t iov_len, payload_len;
> 		int head;
>-		bool restore_flag = false;
>+		uint32_t flags_to_restore = 0;

checkpatch.pl suggest the following:
CHECK: Prefer kernel type 'u32' over 'uint32_t'

Sorry, I suggested that, I forgot that u32 is preferable :-)

>
> 		spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> 		if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>@@ -187,7 +187,12 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock 
>*vsock,
> 			 */

Please also update the comment above with the new flag handled.

> 			if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
> 				pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>-				restore_flag = true;
>+				flags_to_restore |= VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM;
>+
>+				if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR) {
>+					pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>+					flags_to_restore |= VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR;
>+				}
> 			}
> 		}
>
>@@ -224,8 +229,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> 		 * to send it with the next available buffer.
> 		 */
> 		if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>-			if (restore_flag)
>-				pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>+			pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
>
> 			/* We are queueing the same virtio_vsock_pkt to handle
> 			 * the remaining bytes, and we want to deliver it
>-- 
>2.25.1
>

The rest LGTM.

Stefano