netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

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]

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 13:05:55 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, 
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@....com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, 
	Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Kaiyuan Zhang <kaiyuanz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

On 11/07, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 5:06 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > And the socket has to know this association; otherwise those tokens
> > > > > are useless since they don't carry anything to identify the dmabuf.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it
> > > > > for an individual system call.
> > >
> > > You do have the option of passing it or not passing it per system
> > > call. The MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM says the application is willing to receive
> > > devmem cmsgs - that's all. The application doesn't get to decide
> > > whether it's actually going to receive a devmem cmsg or not, because
> > > that's dictated by the type of skb that is present in the receive
> > > queue, and not up to the application. I should explain this in the
> > > commit message...
> >
> > What would be the case of passing it or not passing it? Some fallback to
> > the host memory after flow steering update? Yeah, would be useful to
> > document those constrains. I'd lean on starting stricter and relaxing
> > those conditions if we find the use-cases.
> >
> 
> MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM (or its replacement SOCK_DEVMEM or SO_SOCK_DEVMEM),
> just says that the application is able to receive devmem cmsgs and
> will parse them. The use case for not setting that flag is existing
> applications that are not aware of devmem cmsgs. I don't want those
> applications to think they're receiving data in the linear buffer only
> to find out that the data is in devmem and they ignored the devmem
> cmsg.
> 
> So, what happens:
> 
> - MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM provided and next skb in the queue is devmem:
> application receives cmsgs.
> - MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM provided and next skb in the queue is non-devmem:
> application receives in the linear buffer.
> - MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM not provided and net skb is devmem: application
> receives EFAULT.
> - MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM not provided and next skb is non-devmem: application
> receives in the linear buffer.
> 
> My bad on not including some docs about this. The next version should
> have the commit message beefed up to explain all this, or a docs
> patch.

I don't understand. We require an elaborate setup to receive devmem cmsgs,
why would some random application receive those?