Message-ID: <ZMquW+6Rl6ZsYHad@bullseye>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 19:28:27 +0000
From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
	linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
	Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>,
	Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v5 11/14] vhost/vsock: implement datagram
 support

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 02:40:22PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:50:15AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > This commit implements datagram support for vhost/vsock by teaching
> > vhost to use the common virtio transport datagram functions.
> > 
> > If the virtio RX buffer is too small, then the transmission is
> > abandoned, the packet dropped, and EHOSTUNREACH is added to the socket's
> > error queue.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
> 
> EHOSTUNREACH?
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/vhost/vsock.c    | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c |  5 +++-
> >  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > index d5d6a3c3f273..da14260c6654 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >   */
> >  #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> >  #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > +#include <linux/errqueue.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >  #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > @@ -32,7 +33,8 @@
> >  enum {
> >  	VHOST_VSOCK_FEATURES = VHOST_FEATURES |
> >  			       (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) |
> > -			       (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET)
> > +			       (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET) |
> > +			       (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_DGRAM)
> >  };
> >  
> >  enum {
> > @@ -56,6 +58,7 @@ struct vhost_vsock {
> >  	atomic_t queued_replies;
> >  
> >  	u32 guest_cid;
> > +	bool dgram_allow;
> >  	bool seqpacket_allow;
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -86,6 +89,32 @@ static struct vhost_vsock *vhost_vsock_get(u32 guest_cid)
> >  	return NULL;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/* Claims ownership of the skb, do not free the skb after calling! */
> > +static void
> > +vhost_transport_error(struct sk_buff *skb, int err)
> > +{
> > +	struct sock_exterr_skb *serr;
> > +	struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
> > +	struct sk_buff *clone;
> > +
> > +	serr = SKB_EXT_ERR(skb);
> > +	memset(serr, 0, sizeof(*serr));
> > +	serr->ee.ee_errno = err;
> > +	serr->ee.ee_origin = SO_EE_ORIGIN_NONE;
> > +
> > +	clone = skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!clone)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	if (sock_queue_err_skb(sk, clone))
> > +		kfree_skb(clone);
> > +
> > +	sk->sk_err = err;
> > +	sk_error_report(sk);
> > +
> > +	kfree_skb(skb);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void
> >  vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> >  			    struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > @@ -160,9 +189,15 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> >  		hdr = virtio_vsock_hdr(skb);
> >  
> >  		/* If the packet is greater than the space available in the
> > -		 * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers.
> > +		 * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers for connectible
> > +		 * sockets and drop the packet for datagram sockets.
> >  		 */
> 
> won't this break things like recently proposed zerocopy?
> I think splitup has to be supported for all types.
> 

Could you elaborate? Is there something about zerocopy that would
prohibit the transport from dropping a datagram?

> 
> >  		if (payload_len > iov_len - sizeof(*hdr)) {
> > +			if (le16_to_cpu(hdr->type) == VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_DGRAM) {
> > +				vhost_transport_error(skb, EHOSTUNREACH);
> > +				continue;
> > +			}
> > +
> >  			payload_len = iov_len - sizeof(*hdr);
> >  
> >  			/* As we are copying pieces of large packet's buffer to
> > @@ -394,6 +429,7 @@ static bool vhost_vsock_more_replies(struct vhost_vsock *vsock)
> >  	return val < vq->num;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static bool vhost_transport_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port);
> >  static bool vhost_transport_seqpacket_allow(u32 remote_cid);
> >  
> >  static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> > @@ -410,7 +446,8 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> >  		.cancel_pkt               = vhost_transport_cancel_pkt,
> >  
> >  		.dgram_enqueue            = virtio_transport_dgram_enqueue,
> > -		.dgram_allow              = virtio_transport_dgram_allow,
> > +		.dgram_allow              = vhost_transport_dgram_allow,
> > +		.dgram_addr_init          = virtio_transport_dgram_addr_init,
> >  
> >  		.stream_enqueue           = virtio_transport_stream_enqueue,
> >  		.stream_dequeue           = virtio_transport_stream_dequeue,
> > @@ -443,6 +480,22 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> >  	.send_pkt = vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> >  };
> >  
> > +static bool vhost_transport_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port)
> > +{
> > +	struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > +	bool dgram_allow = false;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	vsock = vhost_vsock_get(cid);
> > +
> > +	if (vsock)
> > +		dgram_allow = vsock->dgram_allow;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > +	return dgram_allow;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static bool vhost_transport_seqpacket_allow(u32 remote_cid)
> >  {
> >  	struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > @@ -799,6 +852,9 @@ static int vhost_vsock_set_features(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, u64 features)
> >  	if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET))
> >  		vsock->seqpacket_allow = true;
> >  
> > +	if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_DGRAM))
> > +		vsock->dgram_allow = true;
> > +
> >  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vsock->vqs); i++) {
> >  		vq = &vsock->vqs[i];
> >  		mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > index e73f3b2c52f1..449ed63ac2b0 100644
> > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > @@ -1427,9 +1427,12 @@ int vsock_dgram_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
> >  		return prot->recvmsg(sk, msg, len, flags, NULL);
> >  #endif
> >  
> > -	if (flags & MSG_OOB || flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE)
> > +	if (unlikely(flags & MSG_OOB))
> >  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >  
> > +	if (unlikely(flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE))
> > +		return sock_recv_errqueue(sk, msg, len, SOL_VSOCK, 0);
> > +
> >  	transport = vsk->transport;
> >  
> >  	/* Retrieve the head sk_buff from the socket's receive queue. */
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.30.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> Virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Powered by blists - more mailing lists