[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230403114835.61946198@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 11:48:35 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>, john.fastabend@...il.com,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
kernel-tls-handshake@...ts.linux.dev,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nvme-tcp: fixup send workflow for kTLS
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 18:51:09 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> What I'm assuming that Hannes is tripping on is that tls does
> not accept when this flag is sent to sock_no_sendpage, which
> is simply calling sendmsg. TLS will not accept this flag when
> passed to sendmsg IIUC.
>
> Today the rough logic in nvme send path is:
>
> if (more_coming(queue)) {
> flags = MSG_MORE | MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST;
> } else {
> flags = MSG_EOR;
> }
>
> if (!sendpage_ok(page)) {
> kernel_sendpage();
> } else {
> sock_no_sendpage();
> }
>
> This pattern (note that sock_no_sednpage was added later following bug
> reports where nvme attempted to sendpage a slab allocated page), is
> perfectly acceptable with normal sockets, but not with TLS.
>
> So there are two options:
> 1. have tls accept MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST in sendmsg (called from
> sock_no_sendpage)
> 2. Make nvme set MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST only when calling
> kernel_sendpage and clear it when calling sock_no_sendpage
>
> If you say that MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST must be cleared when calling
> sock_no_sendpage and it is a bug that it isn't enforced for normal tcp
> sockets, then we need to change nvme, but I did not find
> any documentation that indicates it, and right now, normal sockets
> behave differently than tls sockets (wrt this flag in particular).
>
> Hope this clarifies.
Oh right, it does, the context evaporated from my head over the weekend.
IMHO it's best if the caller passes the right flags. The semantics of
MSG_MORE vs NOTLAST are quite murky and had already caused bugs in the
past :(
See commit d452d48b9f8b ("tls: prevent oversized sendfile() hangs by
ignoring MSG_MORE")
Alternatively we could have sock_no_sendpage drop NOTLAST to help
all protos. But if we consider sendfile behavior as the standard
simply clearing it isn't right, it should be a:
more = (flags & (MORE | NOTLAST)) == MORE | NOTLAST
flags &= ~(MORE | NOTLAST)
if (more)
flags |= MORE
Powered by blists - more mailing lists