[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220425120724.32af0cc3@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:07:24 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v1 1/4] tcp: introduce tcp_read_skb()
On Sun, 10 Apr 2022 09:10:39 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> +int tcp_read_skb(struct sock *sk, read_descriptor_t *desc,
> + sk_read_actor_t recv_actor)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
> + u32 seq = tp->copied_seq;
> + u32 offset;
> + int copied = 0;
> +
> + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN)
> + return -ENOTCONN;
> + while ((skb = tcp_recv_skb(sk, seq, &offset, true)) != NULL) {
> + if (offset < skb->len) {
> + int used;
> + size_t len;
> +
> + len = skb->len - offset;
> + used = recv_actor(desc, skb, offset, len);
> + if (used <= 0) {
> + if (!copied)
> + copied = used;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(used > len))
> + used = len;
> + seq += used;
> + copied += used;
> + offset += used;
> +
> + if (offset != skb->len)
> + continue;
> + }
> + if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->tcp_flags & TCPHDR_FIN) {
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + ++seq;
> + break;
> + }
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + if (!desc->count)
> + break;
> + WRITE_ONCE(tp->copied_seq, seq);
> + }
> + WRITE_ONCE(tp->copied_seq, seq);
> +
> + tcp_rcv_space_adjust(sk);
> +
> + /* Clean up data we have read: This will do ACK frames. */
> + if (copied > 0)
> + tcp_cleanup_rbuf(sk, copied);
> +
> + return copied;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_read_skb);
I started prototyping a similar patch for TLS a while back but I have
two functions - one to get the skb and another to consume it. I thought
that's better for TLS, otherwise skbs stuck in the middle layer are not
counted towards the rbuf. Any thoughts on structuring the API that way?
I guess we can refactor that later, since TLS TCP-only we don't need
proto_ops plumbing there.
Overall 👍 for adding such API.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists