Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] vsock: handle buffer_size sockopts in the core

From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] vsock: handle buffer_size sockopts in the core
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:30:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191009123026.GH5747@stefanha-x1.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190927112703.17745-8-sgarzare@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:57PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> @@ -140,18 +145,11 @@ struct vsock_transport {
>  		struct vsock_transport_send_notify_data *);
>  	int (*notify_send_post_enqueue)(struct vsock_sock *, ssize_t,
>  		struct vsock_transport_send_notify_data *);
> +	int (*notify_buffer_size)(struct vsock_sock *, u64 *);

Is ->notify_buffer_size() called under lock_sock(sk)?  If yes, please
document it.

> +static void vsock_update_buffer_size(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> +				     const struct vsock_transport *transport,
> +				     u64 val)
> +{
> +	if (val > vsk->buffer_max_size)
> +		val = vsk->buffer_max_size;
> +
> +	if (val < vsk->buffer_min_size)
> +		val = vsk->buffer_min_size;
> +
> +	if (val != vsk->buffer_size &&
> +	    transport && transport->notify_buffer_size)
> +		transport->notify_buffer_size(vsk, &val);

Why does this function return an int if we don't check the return value?

> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> index fc046c071178..bac9e7430a2e 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> @@ -403,17 +403,13 @@ int virtio_transport_do_socket_init(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>  	if (psk) {
>  		struct virtio_vsock_sock *ptrans = psk->trans;
>  
> -		vvs->buf_size	= ptrans->buf_size;
> -		vvs->buf_size_min = ptrans->buf_size_min;
> -		vvs->buf_size_max = ptrans->buf_size_max;
>  		vvs->peer_buf_alloc = ptrans->peer_buf_alloc;
> -	} else {
> -		vvs->buf_size = VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE;
> -		vvs->buf_size_min = VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_MIN_BUF_SIZE;
> -		vvs->buf_size_max = VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_MAX_BUF_SIZE;
>  	}
>  
> -	vvs->buf_alloc = vvs->buf_size;
> +	if (vsk->buffer_size > VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE)
> +		vsk->buffer_size = VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE;

Hmm...this could be outside the [min, max] range.  I'm not sure how much
it matters.

Another issue is that this patch drops the VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE
limit that used to be enforced by virtio_transport_set_buffer_size().
Now the limit is only applied at socket init time.  If the buffer size
is changed later then VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE can be exceeded.  If
that doesn't matter, why even bother with VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE
here?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]