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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZUqms8QzQpfPQWyy@google.com> 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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists