netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/4] Revert "net/smc: don't wait for send buffer space when data was already sent"

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: <YXpHvKGhPzcNoEtD@TonyMac-Alibaba>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:48:28 +0800
From:   Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, jacob.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, guwen@...ux.alibaba.com,
        dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/4] Revert "net/smc: don't wait for send buffer
 space when data was already sent"

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:47:10AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:38:27 +0200 Karsten Graul wrote:
> > What we found out was that applications called sendmsg() with large data
> > buffers using blocking sockets. This led to the described situation, were the
> > solution was to early return to user space even if not all data were sent yet.
> > Userspace applications should not have a problem with the fact that sendmsg()
> > returns a smaller byte count than requested.
> > 
> > Reverting this patch would bring back the stalled connection problem.
> 
> I'm not sure. The man page for send says:
> 
>        When the message does not fit into  the  send  buffer  of  the  socket,
>        send()  normally blocks, unless the socket has been placed in nonblock‐
>        ing I/O mode.  In nonblocking mode it would fail with the error  EAGAIN
>        or  EWOULDBLOCK in this case.
> 
> dunno if that's required by POSIX or just a best practice.

The man page describes the common cases about the socket API behavior,
but depends on the implement.

For example, the connect(2) implement of TCP, it would never block, but
also provides EAGAIN errors for UNIX domain sockets.

       EAGAIN For nonblocking UNIX domain sockets, the socket is
              nonblocking, and the connection cannot be completed
              immediately.  For other socket families, there are
              insufficient entries in the routing cache.

In my opinion, if we are going to replace TCP with SMC, these userspace
socket API should behavior as same, and don't break the userspace
applications like netperf. It could be better to block here when sending
message without enough buffer.

In our benchmarks and E2E tests (Redis, MySQL, etc.), it is acceptable to
block here. Because the userspace applications usually block in the loop
until the data send out. If it blocks, the scheduler can handle it.