netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] nvme-tcp: support specifying the congestion-control

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220311164748.00000217@tom.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:47:48 +0800
From:   Mingbao Sun <sunmingbao@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        tyler.sun@...l.com, ping.gan@...l.com, yanxiu.cai@...l.com,
        libin.zhang@...l.com, ao.sun@...l.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] nvme-tcp: support specifying the congestion-control

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:15:18 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:01:12AM +0800, Mingbao Sun wrote:
> > +		case NVMF_OPT_TCP_CONGESTION:
> > +			p = match_strdup(args);
> > +			if (!p) {
> > +				ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +				goto out;
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			kfree(opts->tcp_congestion);
> > +			opts->tcp_congestion = p;  
> 
> We'll need to check that the string is no loner than TCP_CA_NAME_MAX
> somewhere.
> 

accept.
will do that in the next version.
this would also be applied for the target side.

> >  
> > +	if (nctrl->opts->mask & NVMF_OPT_TCP_CONGESTION) {
> > +		ret = tcp_set_congestion_control(queue->sock->sk,
> > +						 nctrl->opts->tcp_congestion,
> > +						 true, true);  
> 
> This needs to be called under lock_sock() protection.  Maybe also
> add an assert to tcp_set_congestion_control to enforce that.

accept.
will handle it in the next version.
this would also be applied for the target side.
Many thanks for reminding.

as for the assertion, I failed to find a conventional way to do that.
would you like to give me a suggestion?