* [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-08-06 7:18 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message' Arseny Krasnov
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Jorgen Hansen, Andra Paraschiv, Norbert Slusarek, Colin Ian King
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
This bit is used to mark end of messages('EOM' - end of message), while
'VIRIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is used to pass MSG_EOR.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
index 3dd3555b2740..1de3211a2988 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ enum virtio_vsock_shutdown {
/* VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW flags values */
enum virtio_vsock_rw {
VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR = 1,
+ VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM = 2,
};
#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_VIRTIO_VSOCK_H */
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-06 7:18 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Jorgen Hansen, Andra Paraschiv, Norbert Slusarek,
Colin Ian King, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:04PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This bit is used to mark end of messages('EOM' - end of message), while
>'VIRIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is used to pass MSG_EOR.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>index 3dd3555b2740..1de3211a2988 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ enum virtio_vsock_shutdown {
> /* VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW flags values */
> enum virtio_vsock_rw {
> VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR = 1,
>+ VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM = 2,
> };
Already said, but I'll repeat it for completeness.
It's better to rename the flag 1 and use it in the same way we did
before, so it's backward compatible.
Obviously we have to update the specifications too, explaining the
difference between the two :-)
Thanks,
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit
@ 2021-08-06 7:18 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Colin Ian King, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Jorgen Hansen
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:04PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This bit is used to mark end of messages('EOM' - end of message), while
>'VIRIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is used to pass MSG_EOR.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>index 3dd3555b2740..1de3211a2988 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ enum virtio_vsock_shutdown {
> /* VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW flags values */
> enum virtio_vsock_rw {
> VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR = 1,
>+ VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM = 2,
> };
Already said, but I'll repeat it for completeness.
It's better to rename the flag 1 and use it in the same way we did
before, so it's backward compatible.
Obviously we have to update the specifications too, explaining the
difference between the two :-)
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message'
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-08-06 7:20 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing Arseny Krasnov
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Jorgen Hansen, Norbert Slusarek, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
As 'record' is not same as 'message', rename current variables,
comments and defines from 'record' concept to 'message'.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 18 +++++++++---------
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 14 +++++++-------
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
index f249622ef11b..3b55de70ac77 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
size_t nbytes;
size_t iov_len, payload_len;
int head;
- bool restore_flag = false;
+ bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
@@ -178,16 +178,16 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
* small rx buffers, headers of packets in rx queue are
* created dynamically and are initialized with header
* of current packet(except length). But in case of
- * SOCK_SEQPACKET, we also must clear record delimeter
- * bit(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR). Otherwise, instead of one
- * packet with delimeter(which marks end of record),
+ * SOCK_SEQPACKET, we also must clear message delimeter
+ * bit(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM). Otherwise, instead of one
+ * packet with delimeter(which marks end of message),
* there will be sequence of packets with delimeter
* bit set. After initialized header will be copied to
* rx buffer, this bit will be restored.
*/
- if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR) {
- pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
- restore_flag = true;
+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
+ pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
+ restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
}
}
@@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
* to send it with the next available buffer.
*/
if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
- if (restore_flag)
- pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
+ if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
/* We are queueing the same virtio_vsock_pkt to handle
* the remaining bytes, and we want to deliver it
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
index 169ba8b72a63..dea564e4b482 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ virtio_transport_alloc_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *info,
if (msg_data_left(info->msg) == 0 &&
info->type == VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_SEQPACKET)
- pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
}
trace_virtio_transport_alloc_pkt(src_cid, src_port,
@@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ static int virtio_transport_seqpacket_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
dequeued_len += pkt_len;
}
- if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR) {
+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
msg_ready = true;
vvs->msg_count--;
}
@@ -1029,7 +1029,7 @@ virtio_transport_recv_enqueue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
goto out;
}
- if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)
+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM)
vvs->msg_count++;
/* Try to copy small packets into the buffer of last packet queued,
@@ -1044,12 +1044,12 @@ virtio_transport_recv_enqueue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
/* If there is space in the last packet queued, we copy the
* new packet in its buffer. We avoid this if the last packet
- * queued has VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR set, because this is
- * delimiter of SEQPACKET record, so 'pkt' is the first packet
- * of a new record.
+ * queued has VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM set, because this is
+ * delimiter of SEQPACKET message, so 'pkt' is the first packet
+ * of a new message.
*/
if ((pkt->len <= last_pkt->buf_len - last_pkt->len) &&
- !(le32_to_cpu(last_pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
+ !(le32_to_cpu(last_pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM)) {
memcpy(last_pkt->buf + last_pkt->len, pkt->buf,
pkt->len);
last_pkt->len += pkt->len;
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message'
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message' Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-06 7:20 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Jorgen Hansen, Norbert Slusarek, Colin Ian King,
Andra Paraschiv, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:25PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>As 'record' is not same as 'message', rename current variables,
>comments and defines from 'record' concept to 'message'.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
This patch is fine, I think you can move here the renaming of the flag
too.
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message'
@ 2021-08-06 7:20 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Colin Ian King, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Jorgen Hansen
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:25PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>As 'record' is not same as 'message', rename current variables,
>comments and defines from 'record' concept to 'message'.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
This patch is fine, I think you can move here the renaming of the flag
too.
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message' Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-27 0:41 ` kernel test robot
2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/7] virito/vsock: " Arseny Krasnov
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Norbert Slusarek, Andra Paraschiv, Colin Ian King
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
size_t iov_len, payload_len;
int head;
bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
+ bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
@@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
+
+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
+ pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
+ restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
+ }
}
}
@@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
* to send it with the next available buffer.
*/
if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
- if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
+ if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
+ if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
+ }
+
/* We are queueing the same virtio_vsock_pkt to handle
* the remaining bytes, and we want to deliver it
* to monitoring devices in the next iteration.
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-27 0:41 ` kernel test robot
2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2021-07-27 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kbuild-all
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8395 bytes --]
Hi Arseny,
[FYI, it's a private test report for your RFC patch.]
[auto build test WARNING on vhost/linux-next]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v5.14-rc3 next-20210726]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Arseny-Krasnov/virtio-vsock-introduce-MSG_EOR-flag-for-SEQPACKET/20210727-010000
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux-next
config: x86_64-rhel-8.3-kselftests (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-10 (Ubuntu 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04) 10.3.0
reproduce:
# apt-get install sparse
# sparse version: v0.6.3-341-g8af24329-dirty
# https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/1897d42ce769068ed6e37e6802f4e78b8786f4d7
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Arseny-Krasnov/virtio-vsock-introduce-MSG_EOR-flag-for-SEQPACKET/20210727-010000
git checkout 1897d42ce769068ed6e37e6802f4e78b8786f4d7
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make W=1 C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' O=build_dir ARCH=x86_64 SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/vhost/
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c:193:37: sparse: sparse: restricted __le32 degrades to integer
>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c:193:37: sparse: sparse: cast to restricted __le32
vim +193 drivers/vhost/vsock.c
89
90 static void
91 vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
92 struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
93 {
94 struct vhost_virtqueue *tx_vq = &vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_TX];
95 int pkts = 0, total_len = 0;
96 bool added = false;
97 bool restart_tx = false;
98
99 mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
100
101 if (!vhost_vq_get_backend(vq))
102 goto out;
103
104 if (!vq_meta_prefetch(vq))
105 goto out;
106
107 /* Avoid further vmexits, we're already processing the virtqueue */
108 vhost_disable_notify(&vsock->dev, vq);
109
110 do {
111 struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt;
112 struct iov_iter iov_iter;
113 unsigned out, in;
114 size_t nbytes;
115 size_t iov_len, payload_len;
116 int head;
117 bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
118 bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
119
120 spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
121 if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
122 spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
123 vhost_enable_notify(&vsock->dev, vq);
124 break;
125 }
126
127 pkt = list_first_entry(&vsock->send_pkt_list,
128 struct virtio_vsock_pkt, list);
129 list_del_init(&pkt->list);
130 spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
131
132 head = vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov, ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
133 &out, &in, NULL, NULL);
134 if (head < 0) {
135 spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
136 list_add(&pkt->list, &vsock->send_pkt_list);
137 spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
138 break;
139 }
140
141 if (head == vq->num) {
142 spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
143 list_add(&pkt->list, &vsock->send_pkt_list);
144 spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
145
146 /* We cannot finish yet if more buffers snuck in while
147 * re-enabling notify.
148 */
149 if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&vsock->dev, vq))) {
150 vhost_disable_notify(&vsock->dev, vq);
151 continue;
152 }
153 break;
154 }
155
156 if (out) {
157 virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
158 vq_err(vq, "Expected 0 output buffers, got %u\n", out);
159 break;
160 }
161
162 iov_len = iov_length(&vq->iov[out], in);
163 if (iov_len < sizeof(pkt->hdr)) {
164 virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
165 vq_err(vq, "Buffer len [%zu] too small\n", iov_len);
166 break;
167 }
168
169 iov_iter_init(&iov_iter, READ, &vq->iov[out], in, iov_len);
170 payload_len = pkt->len - pkt->off;
171
172 /* If the packet is greater than the space available in the
173 * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers.
174 */
175 if (payload_len > iov_len - sizeof(pkt->hdr)) {
176 payload_len = iov_len - sizeof(pkt->hdr);
177
178 /* As we are copying pieces of large packet's buffer to
179 * small rx buffers, headers of packets in rx queue are
180 * created dynamically and are initialized with header
181 * of current packet(except length). But in case of
182 * SOCK_SEQPACKET, we also must clear message delimeter
183 * bit(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM). Otherwise, instead of one
184 * packet with delimeter(which marks end of message),
185 * there will be sequence of packets with delimeter
186 * bit set. After initialized header will be copied to
187 * rx buffer, this bit will be restored.
188 */
189 if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
190 pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
191 restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
192
> 193 if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
194 pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
195 restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
196 }
197 }
198 }
199
200 /* Set the correct length in the header */
201 pkt->hdr.len = cpu_to_le32(payload_len);
202
203 nbytes = copy_to_iter(&pkt->hdr, sizeof(pkt->hdr), &iov_iter);
204 if (nbytes != sizeof(pkt->hdr)) {
205 virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
206 vq_err(vq, "Faulted on copying pkt hdr\n");
207 break;
208 }
209
210 nbytes = copy_to_iter(pkt->buf + pkt->off, payload_len,
211 &iov_iter);
212 if (nbytes != payload_len) {
213 virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
214 vq_err(vq, "Faulted on copying pkt buf\n");
215 break;
216 }
217
218 /* Deliver to monitoring devices all packets that we
219 * will transmit.
220 */
221 virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(pkt);
222
223 vhost_add_used(vq, head, sizeof(pkt->hdr) + payload_len);
224 added = true;
225
226 pkt->off += payload_len;
227 total_len += payload_len;
228
229 /* If we didn't send all the payload we can requeue the packet
230 * to send it with the next available buffer.
231 */
232 if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
233 if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
234 pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
235
236 if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
237 pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
238 }
239
240 /* We are queueing the same virtio_vsock_pkt to handle
241 * the remaining bytes, and we want to deliver it
242 * to monitoring devices in the next iteration.
243 */
244 pkt->tap_delivered = false;
245
246 spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
247 list_add(&pkt->list, &vsock->send_pkt_list);
248 spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
249 } else {
250 if (pkt->reply) {
251 int val;
252
253 val = atomic_dec_return(&vsock->queued_replies);
254
255 /* Do we have resources to resume tx
256 * processing?
257 */
258 if (val + 1 == tx_vq->num)
259 restart_tx = true;
260 }
261
262 virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
263 }
264 } while(likely(!vhost_exceeds_weight(vq, ++pkts, total_len)));
265 if (added)
266 vhost_signal(&vsock->dev, vq);
267
268 out:
269 mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
270
271 if (restart_tx)
272 vhost_poll_queue(&tx_vq->poll);
273 }
274
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all(a)lists.01.org
[-- Attachment #2: config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 42053 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Norbert Slusarek, Andra Paraschiv,
Colin Ian King, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:38PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
>'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
>--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> size_t iov_len, payload_len;
> int head;
> bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
>+ bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
Since we now have 2 flags to potentially restore, we could use a single
variable (e.g. uint32_t flags_to_restore), initialized to 0.
We can set all the flags we need to restore and then simply put it
in or with the `pkt->hdr.flags` field.
> spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>@@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
> pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
> restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
>+
>+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
^
Here it should be `le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR`
>+ pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>+ restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
>+ }
> }
> }
>
>@@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> * to send it with the next available buffer.
> */
> if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>- if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
>+ if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>
>+ if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
>+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>+ }
>+
If we use a single variable, here we can simply do:
pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
@ 2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Colin Ian King, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:38PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
>'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
>--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> size_t iov_len, payload_len;
> int head;
> bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
>+ bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
Since we now have 2 flags to potentially restore, we could use a single
variable (e.g. uint32_t flags_to_restore), initialized to 0.
We can set all the flags we need to restore and then simply put it
in or with the `pkt->hdr.flags` field.
> spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>@@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
> pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
> restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
>+
>+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
^
Here it should be `le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR`
>+ pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>+ restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
>+ }
> }
> }
>
>@@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> * to send it with the next available buffer.
> */
> if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>- if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
>+ if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>
>+ if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
>+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>+ }
>+
If we use a single variable, here we can simply do:
pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-08-06 7:28 ` Stefano Garzarella
(?)
@ 2021-08-06 8:40 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-08-06 8:47 ` Stefano Garzarella
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-08-06 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefano Garzarella
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Norbert Slusarek, Andra Paraschiv,
Colin Ian King, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On 06.08.2021 10:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:38PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
>> 'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>> size_t iov_len, payload_len;
>> int head;
>> bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
>> + bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
> Since we now have 2 flags to potentially restore, we could use a single
> variable (e.g. uint32_t flags_to_restore), initialized to 0.
>
> We can set all the flags we need to restore and then simply put it
> in or with the `pkt->hdr.flags` field.
>
>> spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>> if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>> @@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>> if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
>> pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>> restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
>> +
>> + if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
> ^
> Here it should be `le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR`
>
>> + pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>> + restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
>> + }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>> * to send it with the next available buffer.
>> */
>> if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>> - if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
>> + if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
>> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>>
>> + if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
>> + pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>> + }
>> +
> If we use a single variable, here we can simply do:
>
> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
>
> Stefano
Thanks, i'll prepare v2 both with spec patch. About spec: i've already sent
patch for SEQPACKET, can i prepare spec patch updating current reviewed
SEQPACKET? E.g. i'll include both EOM and EOR in one patch.
Thank You
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-08-06 8:40 ` Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-06 8:47 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Norbert Slusarek, Andra Paraschiv,
Colin Ian King, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:40:38AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 06.08.2021 10:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:38PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
>>> 'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> size_t iov_len, payload_len;
>>> int head;
>>> bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
>>> + bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
>> Since we now have 2 flags to potentially restore, we could use a single
>> variable (e.g. uint32_t flags_to_restore), initialized to 0.
>>
>> We can set all the flags we need to restore and then simply put it
>> in or with the `pkt->hdr.flags` field.
>>
>>> spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>>> if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>>> @@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
>>> pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>>> restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
>>> +
>>> + if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
>> ^
>> Here it should be `le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR`
>>
>>> + pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>>> + restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> * to send it with the next available buffer.
>>> */
>>> if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>>> - if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
>>> + if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
>>> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>>>
>>> + if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
>>> + pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>>> + }
>>> +
>> If we use a single variable, here we can simply do:
>>
>> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
>>
>> Stefano
>
>Thanks, i'll prepare v2 both with spec patch. About spec: i've already sent
>
>patch for SEQPACKET, can i prepare spec patch updating current reviewed
>
>SEQPACKET? E.g. i'll include both EOM and EOR in one patch.
Yep, since spec is not yet merged, I think make sense to have all
seqpacket stuff in a single patch.
Thanks,
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
@ 2021-08-06 8:47 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Colin Ian King, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:40:38AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 06.08.2021 10:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:38PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> It works in the same way as 'end-of-message' bit: if packet has
>>> 'EOM' bit, also check for 'EOR' bit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> index 3b55de70ac77..3e2b150f9c6f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
>>> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> size_t iov_len, payload_len;
>>> int head;
>>> bool restore_msg_eom_flag = false;
>>> + bool restore_msg_eor_flag = false;
>> Since we now have 2 flags to potentially restore, we could use a single
>> variable (e.g. uint32_t flags_to_restore), initialized to 0.
>>
>> We can set all the flags we need to restore and then simply put it
>> in or with the `pkt->hdr.flags` field.
>>
>>> spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>>> if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) {
>>> @@ -188,6 +189,11 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
>>> pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>>> restore_msg_eom_flag = true;
>>> +
>>> + if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)) {
>> ^
>> Here it should be `le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR`
>>
>>> + pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>>> + restore_msg_eor_flag = true;
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -224,9 +230,13 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>>> * to send it with the next available buffer.
>>> */
>>> if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
>>> - if (restore_msg_eom_flag)
>>> + if (restore_msg_eom_flag) {
>>> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
>>>
>>> + if (restore_msg_eor_flag)
>>> + pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
>>> + }
>>> +
>> If we use a single variable, here we can simply do:
>>
>> pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore);
>>
>> Stefano
>
>Thanks, i'll prepare v2 both with spec patch. About spec: i've already sent
>
>patch for SEQPACKET, can i prepare spec patch updating current reviewed
>
>SEQPACKET? E.g. i'll include both EOM and EOR in one patch.
Yep, since spec is not yet merged, I think make sense to have all
seqpacket stuff in a single patch.
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 4/7] virito/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/7] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:34 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/7] af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop Arseny Krasnov
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Andra Paraschiv, Colin Ian King, Norbert Slusarek
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
If packet has 'EOR' bit - set MSG_EOR in 'recvmsg()' flags.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
index dea564e4b482..ee80f31b1368 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
@@ -76,8 +76,12 @@ virtio_transport_alloc_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *info,
goto out;
if (msg_data_left(info->msg) == 0 &&
- info->type == VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_SEQPACKET)
+ info->type == VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_SEQPACKET) {
pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM);
+
+ if (info->msg->msg_flags & MSG_EOR)
+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR);
+ }
}
trace_virtio_transport_alloc_pkt(src_cid, src_port,
@@ -460,6 +464,9 @@ static int virtio_transport_seqpacket_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) {
msg_ready = true;
vvs->msg_count--;
+
+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR)
+ msg->msg_flags |= MSG_EOR;
}
virtio_transport_dec_rx_pkt(vvs, pkt);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 5/7] af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/7] virito/vsock: " Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:34 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:34 ` [RFC PATCH v1 6/7] vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR Arseny Krasnov
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Jorgen Hansen, Andra Paraschiv, Norbert Slusarek, Colin Ian King
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
Record is supported via MSG_EOR flag, while current logic operates
with message, so rename variables from 'record' to 'message'.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index 3e02cc3b24f8..e2c0cfb334d2 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -2014,7 +2014,7 @@ static int __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
{
const struct vsock_transport *transport;
struct vsock_sock *vsk;
- ssize_t record_len;
+ ssize_t msg_len;
long timeout;
int err = 0;
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
@@ -2028,9 +2028,9 @@ static int __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
if (err <= 0)
goto out;
- record_len = transport->seqpacket_dequeue(vsk, msg, flags);
+ msg_len = transport->seqpacket_dequeue(vsk, msg, flags);
- if (record_len < 0) {
+ if (msg_len < 0) {
err = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}
@@ -2044,14 +2044,14 @@ static int __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
* packet.
*/
if (flags & MSG_TRUNC)
- err = record_len;
+ err = msg_len;
else
err = len - msg_data_left(msg);
/* Always set MSG_TRUNC if real length of packet is
* bigger than user's buffer.
*/
- if (record_len > len)
+ if (msg_len > len)
msg->msg_flags |= MSG_TRUNC;
}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 6/7] vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-26 16:34 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/7] af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:34 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-26 16:34 ` [RFC PATCH v1 7/7] vsock_test: 'SO_RCVTIMEO' test for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Norbert Slusarek, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
Set 'MSG_EOR' in one of message sent, check that 'MSG_EOR'
is visible in corresponding message at receiver.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
index 67766bfe176f..2a3638c0a008 100644
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
@@ -282,6 +282,7 @@ static void test_stream_msg_peek_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
}
#define MESSAGES_CNT 7
+#define MSG_EOR_IDX (MESSAGES_CNT / 2)
static void test_seqpacket_msg_bounds_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
{
int fd;
@@ -294,7 +295,7 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_bounds_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
/* Send several messages, one with MSG_EOR flag */
for (int i = 0; i < MESSAGES_CNT; i++)
- send_byte(fd, 1, 0);
+ send_byte(fd, 1, (i == MSG_EOR_IDX) ? MSG_EOR : 0);
control_writeln("SENDDONE");
close(fd);
@@ -324,6 +325,11 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_bounds_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
perror("message bound violated");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
+
+ if ((i == MSG_EOR_IDX) ^ !!(msg.msg_flags & MSG_EOR)) {
+ perror("MSG_EOR");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
}
close(fd);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH v1 7/7] vsock_test: 'SO_RCVTIMEO' test for SEQPACKET
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-26 16:34 ` [RFC PATCH v1 6/7] vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-26 16:34 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-27 7:59 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-08-04 12:57 ` Stefano Garzarella
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-26 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Stefano Garzarella, Michael S. Tsirkin,
Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Arseny Krasnov,
Jorgen Hansen, Andra Paraschiv, Colin Ian King, Norbert Slusarek
Cc: kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel, oxffffaa
Test for receive timeout check: connection is established,
receiver sets timeout, but sender does nothing. Receiver's
'read()' call must return EAGAIN.
Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
---
tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
index 2a3638c0a008..aa2de27d0f77 100644
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
@@ -391,6 +391,50 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
close(fd);
}
+static void test_seqpacket_timeout_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
+{
+ int fd;
+ struct timeval tv;
+ char dummy;
+
+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
+ if (fd < 0) {
+ perror("connect");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+
+ tv.tv_sec = 1;
+ tv.tv_usec = 0;
+
+ if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (void *)&tv, sizeof(tv)) == -1) {
+ perror("setsockopt 'SO_RCVTIMEO'");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+
+ if ((read(fd, &dummy, sizeof(dummy)) != -1) ||
+ (errno != EAGAIN)) {
+ perror("EAGAIN expected");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+
+ control_writeln("WAITDONE");
+ close(fd);
+}
+
+static void test_seqpacket_timeout_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
+{
+ int fd;
+
+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_accept(VMADDR_CID_ANY, 1234, NULL);
+ if (fd < 0) {
+ perror("accept");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+
+ control_expectln("WAITDONE");
+ close(fd);
+}
+
static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
{
.name = "SOCK_STREAM connection reset",
@@ -431,6 +475,11 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
.run_client = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_client,
.run_server = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server,
},
+ {
+ .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET timeout",
+ .run_client = test_seqpacket_timeout_client,
+ .run_server = test_seqpacket_timeout_server,
+ },
{},
};
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-27 7:59 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message' Arseny Krasnov
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-07-27 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>Current implementation based on message definition above.
> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
compatible.
What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
while the other does?
I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
Thanks,
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
@ 2021-07-27 7:59 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-07-27 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>Current implementation based on message definition above.
> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
compatible.
What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
while the other does?
I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-07-27 7:59 ` Stefano Garzarella
(?)
@ 2021-07-27 9:34 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-07-27 9:58 ` Stefano Garzarella
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-27 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefano Garzarella
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
> At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
> compatible.
>
> What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
> while the other does?
>
> I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-07-27 9:34 ` [MASSMAIL KLMS] " Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-07-27 9:58 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-07-27 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:34:36PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
>> At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
>> compatible.
>>
>> What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
>> while the other does?
>>
>> I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
>Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec
Yep, sure!
What do you think about the concerns above?
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
@ 2021-07-27 9:58 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-07-27 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:34:36PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
>> At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
>> compatible.
>>
>> What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
>> while the other does?
>>
>> I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
>Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec
Yep, sure!
What do you think about the concerns above?
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-07-27 9:58 ` Stefano Garzarella
(?)
@ 2021-07-27 12:35 ` Arseny Krasnov
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-07-27 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefano Garzarella
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On 27.07.2021 12:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:34:36PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
>>> At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>> What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
>>> while the other does?
>>>
>>> I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
>> Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec
> Yep, sure!
>
> What do you think about the concerns above?
I think you are right, i'll rename EOR -> EOM, and EOR will be added by patch
>
> Stefano
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-07-26 16:31 [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-04 12:57 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-07-26 16:33 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] vsock: rename implementation from 'record' to 'message' Arseny Krasnov
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-04 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
Hi Arseny,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>Current implementation based on message definition above.
Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
maybe we can backport the fixes...
> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
I understand that it makes sense to remap VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR to
MSG_EOR to make the user understand the boundaries, but why do we need
EOM as well?
Why do we care about the boundaries of a message within a record?
I mean, if the sender makes 3 calls:
send(A1,0)
send(A2,0)
send(A3, MSG_EOR);
IIUC it should be fine if the receiver for example receives all in one
single recv() calll with MSG_EOR set, so why do we need EOM?
Thanks,
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
@ 2021-08-04 12:57 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-04 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller
Hi Arseny,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>Current implementation based on message definition above.
Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
maybe we can backport the fixes...
> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
I understand that it makes sense to remap VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR to
MSG_EOR to make the user understand the boundaries, but why do we need
EOM as well?
Why do we care about the boundaries of a message within a record?
I mean, if the sender makes 3 calls:
send(A1,0)
send(A2,0)
send(A3, MSG_EOR);
IIUC it should be fine if the receiver for example receives all in one
single recv() calll with MSG_EOR set, so why do we need EOM?
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-08-04 12:57 ` Stefano Garzarella
(?)
@ 2021-08-05 8:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-08-05 9:06 ` Stefano Garzarella
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-08-05 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefano Garzarella
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> Hi Arseny,
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
> maybe we can backport the fixes...
Hi,
No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but this
requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until MSG_EOR found.
But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or read()(e.g.
message based mode).
Thank You
>
>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
> I understand that it makes sense to remap VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR to
> MSG_EOR to make the user understand the boundaries, but why do we need
> EOM as well?
>
> Why do we care about the boundaries of a message within a record?
> I mean, if the sender makes 3 calls:
> send(A1,0)
> send(A2,0)
> send(A3, MSG_EOR);
>
> IIUC it should be fine if the receiver for example receives all in one
> single recv() calll with MSG_EOR set, so why do we need EOM?
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-08-05 8:33 ` Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-05 9:06 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-05 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:33:12AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Arseny,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
>> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
>> maybe we can backport the fixes...
>
>Hi,
>
>No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
>patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
>useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
>is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
>Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but
>this
>requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
>when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until
>MSG_EOR found.
>But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
>it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or
>read()(e.g.
>message based mode).
I'm not sure we should maintain boundaries of multiple send(), from
POSIX standard [1]:
SOCK_SEQPACKET
Provides sequenced, reliable, bidirectional, connection-mode
transmission paths for records. A record can be sent using one or
more output operations and received using one or more input
operations, but a single operation never transfers part of more than
one record. Record boundaries are visible to the receiver via the
MSG_EOR flag.
From my understanding a record could be sent with multiple send() and
received, for example, with a single recvmsg().
The only boundary should be the MSG_EOR flag set by the user on the last
send() of a record.
From send() description [2]:
MSG_EOR
Terminates a record (if supported by the protocol).
From recvmsg() description [3]:
MSG_EOR
End-of-record was received (if supported by the protocol).
Thanks,
Stefano
[1]
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/socket.html
[2] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/send.html
[3]
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/recvmsg.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
@ 2021-08-05 9:06 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-05 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:33:12AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Arseny,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
>> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
>> maybe we can backport the fixes...
>
>Hi,
>
>No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
>patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
>useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
>is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
>Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but
>this
>requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
>when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until
>MSG_EOR found.
>But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
>it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or
>read()(e.g.
>message based mode).
I'm not sure we should maintain boundaries of multiple send(), from
POSIX standard [1]:
SOCK_SEQPACKET
Provides sequenced, reliable, bidirectional, connection-mode
transmission paths for records. A record can be sent using one or
more output operations and received using one or more input
operations, but a single operation never transfers part of more than
one record. Record boundaries are visible to the receiver via the
MSG_EOR flag.
From my understanding a record could be sent with multiple send() and
received, for example, with a single recvmsg().
The only boundary should be the MSG_EOR flag set by the user on the last
send() of a record.
From send() description [2]:
MSG_EOR
Terminates a record (if supported by the protocol).
From recvmsg() description [3]:
MSG_EOR
End-of-record was received (if supported by the protocol).
Thanks,
Stefano
[1]
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/socket.html
[2] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/send.html
[3]
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/recvmsg.html
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [!!Mass Mail KSE][MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-08-05 9:06 ` Stefano Garzarella
(?)
@ 2021-08-05 9:21 ` Arseny Krasnov
2021-08-06 7:16 ` Stefano Garzarella
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread
From: Arseny Krasnov @ 2021-08-05 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefano Garzarella
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On 05.08.2021 12:06, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:33:12AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Arseny,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
>>> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
>>> maybe we can backport the fixes...
>> Hi,
>>
>> No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
>> patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
>> useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
>> is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
>> Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but
>> this
>> requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
>> when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until
>> MSG_EOR found.
>> But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
>> it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or
>> read()(e.g.
>> message based mode).
> I'm not sure we should maintain boundaries of multiple send(), from
> POSIX standard [1]:
Yes, but also from POSIX: such calls like send() and sendmsg()
operates with "message" and if we check recvmsg() we will
find the following thing:
For message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire
message shall be read in a single operation. If a message is too long to fit in the supplied
buffers, and MSG_PEEK is not set in the flags argument, the excess bytes shall be discarded.
I understand this, that send() boundaries also must be maintained.
I've checked SEQPACKET in AF_UNIX and AX_25 - both doesn't support
MSG_EOR, so send() boundaries must be supported.
>
> SOCK_SEQPACKET
> Provides sequenced, reliable, bidirectional, connection-mode
> transmission paths for records. A record can be sent using one or
> more output operations and received using one or more input
> operations, but a single operation never transfers part of more than
> one record. Record boundaries are visible to the receiver via the
> MSG_EOR flag.
>
> From my understanding a record could be sent with multiple send() and
> received, for example, with a single recvmsg().
> The only boundary should be the MSG_EOR flag set by the user on the last
> send() of a record.
You are right, if we talking about "record".
>
> From send() description [2]:
>
> MSG_EOR
> Terminates a record (if supported by the protocol).
>
> From recvmsg() description [3]:
>
> MSG_EOR
> End-of-record was received (if supported by the protocol).
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
> [1]
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/socket.html
> [2] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/send.html
> [3]
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/recvmsg.html
P.S.: seems SEQPACKET is too exotic thing that everyone implements it in
own manner, because i've tested SCTP seqpacket implementation, and found
that:
1) It doesn't support MSG_EOR bit at send side, but uses MSG_EOR at receiver
side to mark MESSAGE boundary.
2) According POSIX any extra bytes that didn't fit in user's buffer must be dropped,
but SCTP doesn't drop it - you can read rest of datagram in next calls.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [!!Mass Mail KSE][MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
2021-08-05 9:21 ` [!!Mass Mail KSE][MASSMAIL KLMS] " Arseny Krasnov
@ 2021-08-06 7:16 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Andra Paraschiv,
Norbert Slusarek, kvm, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
oxffffaa
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 12:21:57PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 05.08.2021 12:06, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:33:12AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Arseny,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>>> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
>>>> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
>>>> maybe we can backport the fixes...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
>>> patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
>>> useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
>>> is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
>>> Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but
>>> this
>>> requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
>>> when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until
>>> MSG_EOR found.
>>> But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
>>> it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or
>>> read()(e.g.
>>> message based mode).
>> I'm not sure we should maintain boundaries of multiple send(), from
>> POSIX standard [1]:
>
>Yes, but also from POSIX: such calls like send() and sendmsg()
>
>operates with "message" and if we check recvmsg() we will
>
>find the following thing:
>
>
>For message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire
>
>message shall be read in a single operation. If a message is too long to fit in the supplied
>
>buffers, and MSG_PEEK is not set in the flags argument, the excess bytes shall be discarded.
>
>
>I understand this, that send() boundaries also must be maintained.
>
>I've checked SEQPACKET in AF_UNIX and AX_25 - both doesn't support
>
>MSG_EOR, so send() boundaries must be supported.
>
>>
>> SOCK_SEQPACKET
>> Provides sequenced, reliable, bidirectional, connection-mode
>> transmission paths for records. A record can be sent using one or
>> more output operations and received using one or more input
>> operations, but a single operation never transfers part of more than
>> one record. Record boundaries are visible to the receiver via the
>> MSG_EOR flag.
>>
>> From my understanding a record could be sent with multiple send()
>> and
>> received, for example, with a single recvmsg().
>> The only boundary should be the MSG_EOR flag set by the user on the
>> last
>> send() of a record.
>You are right, if we talking about "record".
>>
>> From send() description [2]:
>>
>> MSG_EOR
>> Terminates a record (if supported by the protocol).
>>
>> From recvmsg() description [3]:
>>
>> MSG_EOR
>> End-of-record was received (if supported by the protocol).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stefano
>>
>> [1]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/socket.html
>> [2]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/send.html
>> [3]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/recvmsg.html
>
>P.S.: seems SEQPACKET is too exotic thing that everyone implements it
>in
>
>own manner, because i've tested SCTP seqpacket implementation, and
>found
>
>that:
>
>1) It doesn't support MSG_EOR bit at send side, but uses MSG_EOR at
>receiver
>
>side to mark MESSAGE boundary.
>
>2) According POSIX any extra bytes that didn't fit in user's buffer
>must be dropped,
>
>but SCTP doesn't drop it - you can read rest of datagram in next calls.
>
Thanks for this useful information, now I see the differences and why we
should support both.
I think is better to include them in the cover letter.
I'm going to review the paches right now :-)
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: [!!Mass Mail KSE][MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
@ 2021-08-06 7:16 ` Stefano Garzarella
0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-08-06 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arseny Krasnov
Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, linux-kernel,
virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi,
Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 12:21:57PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 05.08.2021 12:06, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:33:12AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> On 04.08.2021 15:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Arseny,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>>>> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>>> Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
>>>> Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
>>>> maybe we can backport the fixes...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> No, this is correct and it is message boundary based. Idea of this
>>> patchset is to add extra boundaries marker which i think could be
>>> useful when we want to send data in seqpacket mode which length
>>> is bigger than maximum message length(this is limited by transport).
>>> Of course we can fragment big piece of data too small messages, but
>>> this
>>> requires to carry fragmentation info in data protocol. So In this case
>>> when we want to maintain boundaries receiver calls recvmsg() until
>>> MSG_EOR found.
>>> But when receiver knows, that data is fit in maximum datagram length,
>>> it doesn't care about checking MSG_EOR just calling recv() or
>>> read()(e.g.
>>> message based mode).
>> I'm not sure we should maintain boundaries of multiple send(), from
>> POSIX standard [1]:
>
>Yes, but also from POSIX: such calls like send() and sendmsg()
>
>operates with "message" and if we check recvmsg() we will
>
>find the following thing:
>
>
>For message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire
>
>message shall be read in a single operation. If a message is too long to fit in the supplied
>
>buffers, and MSG_PEEK is not set in the flags argument, the excess bytes shall be discarded.
>
>
>I understand this, that send() boundaries also must be maintained.
>
>I've checked SEQPACKET in AF_UNIX and AX_25 - both doesn't support
>
>MSG_EOR, so send() boundaries must be supported.
>
>>
>> SOCK_SEQPACKET
>> Provides sequenced, reliable, bidirectional, connection-mode
>> transmission paths for records. A record can be sent using one or
>> more output operations and received using one or more input
>> operations, but a single operation never transfers part of more than
>> one record. Record boundaries are visible to the receiver via the
>> MSG_EOR flag.
>>
>> From my understanding a record could be sent with multiple send()
>> and
>> received, for example, with a single recvmsg().
>> The only boundary should be the MSG_EOR flag set by the user on the
>> last
>> send() of a record.
>You are right, if we talking about "record".
>>
>> From send() description [2]:
>>
>> MSG_EOR
>> Terminates a record (if supported by the protocol).
>>
>> From recvmsg() description [3]:
>>
>> MSG_EOR
>> End-of-record was received (if supported by the protocol).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stefano
>>
>> [1]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/socket.html
>> [2]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/send.html
>> [3]
>> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/recvmsg.html
>
>P.S.: seems SEQPACKET is too exotic thing that everyone implements it
>in
>
>own manner, because i've tested SCTP seqpacket implementation, and
>found
>
>that:
>
>1) It doesn't support MSG_EOR bit at send side, but uses MSG_EOR at
>receiver
>
>side to mark MESSAGE boundary.
>
>2) According POSIX any extra bytes that didn't fit in user's buffer
>must be dropped,
>
>but SCTP doesn't drop it - you can read rest of datagram in next calls.
>
Thanks for this useful information, now I see the differences and why we
should support both.
I think is better to include them in the cover letter.
I'm going to review the paches right now :-)
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread