[PATCH] net: Relax the npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS

[PATCH] net: Relax the npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS

[Miaohe Lin]

The npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS can be relaxed if we succeed to
allocate high order pages as the note in comment said.

Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
 net/core/skbuff.c | 11 ++++-------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index 2f7dd689bccc..ca432bbfd90b 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -5758,13 +5758,6 @@ struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_with_frags(unsigned long header_len,
 	struct page *page;
 	int i;
 
-	*errcode = -EMSGSIZE;
-	/* Note this test could be relaxed, if we succeed to allocate
-	 * high order pages...
-	 */
-	if (npages > MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
-		return NULL;
-
 	*errcode = -ENOBUFS;
 	skb = alloc_skb(header_len, gfp_mask);
 	if (!skb)
@@ -5775,6 +5768,10 @@ struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_with_frags(unsigned long header_len,
 	for (i = 0; npages > 0; i++) {
 		int order = max_page_order;
 
+		if (unlikely(i >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS)) {
+			*errcode = -EMSGSIZE;
+			goto failure;
+		}
 		while (order) {
 			if (npages >= 1 << order) {
 				page = alloc_pages((gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |
-- 
2.19.1

Re: [PATCH] net: Relax the npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS

[Eric Dumazet]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:58 AM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> The npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS can be relaxed if we succeed to
> allocate high order pages as the note in comment said.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
> ---
>  net/core/skbuff.c | 11 ++++-------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index 2f7dd689bccc..ca432bbfd90b 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -5758,13 +5758,6 @@ struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_with_frags(unsigned long header_len,
>         struct page *page;
>         int i;
>
> -       *errcode = -EMSGSIZE;
> -       /* Note this test could be relaxed, if we succeed to allocate
> -        * high order pages...
> -        */
> -       if (npages > MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
> -               return NULL;
> -
>         *errcode = -ENOBUFS;
>         skb = alloc_skb(header_len, gfp_mask);
>         if (!skb)
> @@ -5775,6 +5768,10 @@ struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_with_frags(unsigned long header_len,
>         for (i = 0; npages > 0; i++) {
>                 int order = max_page_order;
>
> +               if (unlikely(i >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS)) {
> +                       *errcode = -EMSGSIZE;
> +                       goto failure;
> +               }
>                 while (order) {
>                         if (npages >= 1 << order) {
>                                 page = alloc_pages((gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |
> --
> 2.19.1




We do not want this change.

This interface is used by datagram providers, we do not want to claim
they can safely use skb allocations over 64KB.

Returning -EMSGSIZE should not depend on availability of high-order pages.

The comment was a hint, but we need first a valid user before
considering expanding the interface.

Re: [PATCH] net: Relax the npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS

[linmiaohe]

Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:58 AM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> The npages test against MAX_SKB_FRAGS can be relaxed if we succeed to 
>> allocate high order pages as the note in comment said.
>>
>
>
>We do not want this change.
>
>This interface is used by datagram providers, we do not want to claim they can safely use skb allocations over 64KB.
>
>Returning -EMSGSIZE should not depend on availability of high-order pages.
>
>The comment was a hint, but we need first a valid user before considering expanding the interface.

I see. Many thanks for reply and explaination. :)