Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND]

["Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Arnaldo,

On 05/28/2014 02:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:28:37PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>>> <acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
>>>>> On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>>>> Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one?
>>>>
>>>>> Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily
>>>>> harder. Also, it means that anyone else who was interested in this
>>>>
>>>> It was meant to highlight the changes with regard to the previous patch,
>>>> i.e. to make things easier for reviewing.
>>>
>>> (I don't think that works...)
>>
>> Lets try both then, 
> 
> That's better!
> 
>> attached goes the updated patch, and this is the
>> diff to the last combined one:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c
>> index 310a50971769..379be43879db 100644
>> --- a/net/socket.c
>> +++ b/net/socket.c
>> @@ -2478,8 +2478,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(recvmmsg, int, fd, struct mmsghdr __user *, mmsg,
>>  
>>  	datagrams = __sys_recvmmsg(fd, mmsg, vlen, flags, &timeout_sys);
>>  
>> -	if (datagrams > 0 &&
>> -	    copy_to_user(timeout, &timeout_sys, sizeof(timeout_sys)))
>> +	if (copy_to_user(timeout, &timeout_sys, sizeof(timeout_sys)))
>>  		datagrams = -EFAULT;
>>  
>>  	return datagrams;
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is a quick thing just to show where the problem lies, need to think
>> how to report an -EFAULT at this point properly, i.e. look at
>> __sys_recvmmsg for something related (returning the number of
>> successfully copied datagrams to userspace while storing the error for
>> subsequent reporting):
>>
>>         if (err == 0)
>>                 return datagrams;
>>
>>         if (datagrams != 0) {
>>                 /*
>>                  * We may return less entries than requested (vlen) if
>>                  * the
>>                  * sock is non block and there aren't enough
>>                  * datagrams...
>>                  */
>>                 if (err != -EAGAIN) {
>>                         /*
>>                          * ... or  if recvmsg returns an error after we
>>                          * received some datagrams, where we record the
>>                          * error to return on the next call or if the
>>                          * app asks about it using getsockopt(SO_ERROR).
>>                          */
>>                         sock->sk->sk_err = -err;
>>                 }
>>
>>                 return datagrams;
>>         }
>>
>> I.e. userspace would have to use getsockopt(SO_ERROR)... need to think
>> more about it, sidetracked now, will be back to this.
>>
>> Anyway, attached goes the current combined patch.
> 
> So, I applied against net-next as you suggested offlist.
> Builds and generally tests fine. Some observations:
> 
> * In the case that the call is interrupted by a signal handler and no
>   datagrams have been received, the call fails with EINTR, as expected.
> 
> * The call always updates 'timeout', both in the success case and in the
>   EINTR case. (That seems fine.)

So, returning to your recvmmsg-timeout-v3.patch. I think the behavior as
implemented, and described above is okay.

> But, another question...
> 
> In the case that the call is interrupted by a signal handler and some
> datagrams have already been received, then the call succeeds, and
> returns the number of datagrams received, and 'timeout' is updated with
> the remaining time. Maybe that's the right behavior, but I just want to
> check. There is at least one other possibility:
>
> * Fetch no datagrams (i.e., the datagrams are left to receive in a
>   future call), and the call fails with EINTR, and 'timeout' is updated.
> 
> Maybe that possibility is hard to implement (not sure). But my main point
> is to make the current behavior clear, note the alternative, and ask:
> is the current behavior the best choice. (I'm not saying it's not, but I
> do want the choice to be a conscious one.)

So, I think (can't find the mail right now) that you explained elsewhere
that the above would be hard to implement. And in any case, I'm not sure
it's desirable; I only wanted to check that the choice was a deliberate one.

However, there is still a weirdness, which relates to the discussion you
and David Laight had. 

Suppose the following scenario.

1. We do a recvmmsg() with 10 second timeout, asking for 5 messages.
2. 3 messages arrive
3. 6 seconds after the call, a signal handler interrupts the call.
4. recvmmsg() returns success, telling us it got 3 messages.

So far, so good. But

5. We make a further recvmmsg() call.
6. That call returns immediately, with an EINTR error.

That really should not be happening. As noted elsewhere in this
thread, EINTR is a property of a specific system call, not of the
thread or the socket. By the time of step 5, the kernel should
already have forgotten about the signal that occurred at step 3.
I don't think I saw any other patch that fixes that behavior.

I recall now that this was why I was waiting for you to follow up 
in this thread with a new patch.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html