Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] tun: vringfd receive support.

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Wednesday 09 April 2008 05:49:15 Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This patch modifies tun to allow a vringfd to specify the receive
> > buffer.  Because we can't copy to userspace in bh context, we queue
> > like normal then use the "pull" hook to actually do the copy.
> >
> > More thought needs to be put into the possible races with ring
> > registration and a simultaneous close, for example (see FIXME).
> >
> > We use struct virtio_net_hdr prepended to packets in the ring to allow
> > userspace to receive GSO packets in future (at the moment, the tun
> > driver doesn't tell the stack it can handle them, so these cases are
> > never taken).
>
> In general the code looks good. The only thing I could not convince myself
> in is whether having generic ring buffer makes sense or not.
> At least the TUN driver would be more efficient if it had its own simple
> ring implementation. Less indirection, fewer callbacks, fewer if()s, etc.
> TUN already has the file descriptor and having two additional fds for rx
> and tx ring is a waste (think of a VPN server that has to have a bunch of
> TUN fds). Also as I mentioned before Jamal and I wanted to expose some of
> the SKB fields through TUN device. With the rx/tx rings the natural way of
> doing that would be the ring descriptor itself. It can of course be done
> the same way we copy proto info (PI) and GSO stuff before the packet but
> that means more copy_to_user() calls and yet more checks.
>
> So. What am I missing ? Why do we need generic ring for the TUN ? I looked
> at the lguest code a bit and it seems that we need a bunch of network
> specific code anyway. The cool thing is that you can now mmap the rings
> into the guest directly but the same thing can be done with TUN specific
> rings.

I started modifying tun to do this directly, but it ended up with a whole heap 
of code just for the rings, and a lot of current code (eg. read, write, poll) 
ended up inside an 'if (tun->rings) ... else {'.  Having a natural poll() 
interface for the rings made more sense, so being their own fds fell out 
naturally.

I decided to float this version because it does minimal damage to tun, and I 
know that other people have wanted rings before: I'd like to know if this is 
likely to be generic enough for them.

Thanks!
Rusty