Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v5 11/14] vhost/vsock: implement datagram support

Bobby Eshleman
2023-08-15T01:41:58Z

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:28:27PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 02:40:22PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:50:15AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > This commit implements datagram support for vhost/vsock by teaching
> > > vhost to use the common virtio transport datagram functions.
> > >
> > > If the virtio RX buffer is too small, then the transmission is
> > > abandoned, the packet dropped, and EHOSTUNREACH is added to the socket's
> > > error queue.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>
> >
> > EHOSTUNREACH?
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 5 +++-
> > > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > index d5d6a3c3f273..da14260c6654 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > */
> > > #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> > > #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > > +#include <linux/errqueue.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > > @@ -32,7 +33,8 @@
> > > enum {
> > > VHOST_VSOCK_FEATURES = VHOST_FEATURES |
> > > (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) |
> > > - (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET)
> > > + (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET) |
> > > + (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_DGRAM)
> > > };
> > >
> > > enum {
> > > @@ -56,6 +58,7 @@ struct vhost_vsock {
> > > atomic_t queued_replies;
> > >
> > > u32 guest_cid;
> > > + bool dgram_allow;
> > > bool seqpacket_allow;
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -86,6 +89,32 @@ static struct vhost_vsock *vhost_vsock_get(u32 guest_cid)
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/* Claims ownership of the skb, do not free the skb after calling! */
> > > +static void
> > > +vhost_transport_error(struct sk_buff *skb, int err)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sock_exterr_skb *serr;
> > > + struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
> > > + struct sk_buff *clone;
> > > +
> > > + serr = SKB_EXT_ERR(skb);
> > > + memset(serr, 0, sizeof(*serr));
> > > + serr->ee.ee_errno = err;
> > > + serr->ee.ee_origin = SO_EE_ORIGIN_NONE;
> > > +
> > > + clone = skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!clone)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if (sock_queue_err_skb(sk, clone))
> > > + kfree_skb(clone);
> > > +
> > > + sk->sk_err = err;
> > > + sk_error_report(sk);
> > > +
> > > + kfree_skb(skb);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void
> > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> > > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > > @@ -160,9 +189,15 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
> > > hdr = virtio_vsock_hdr(skb);
> > >
> > > /* If the packet is greater than the space available in the
> > > - * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers.
> > > + * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers for connectible
> > > + * sockets and drop the packet for datagram sockets.
> > > */
> >
> > won't this break things like recently proposed zerocopy?
> > I think splitup has to be supported for all types.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate? Is there something about zerocopy that would
> prohibit the transport from dropping a datagram?
>

I would like to ask about this before I send out the draft spec.

I'm not sure if a lack of splitting breaks anything, but I do like
the flexibility that splitting offers between senders and receivers, and
I think it will avoid confusion for some users.

Regarding the spec: because datagrams are connectionless, same-address
fragments can be coming from different sockets and therefore different
packets. This Linux implementation can avoid some complexity because it
already follows the rule that "fragments are always sent in order, one
after the other, until completion"... and so by adding a "more
fragments" flag, seqnum, and "offset" field to the header, a simple FIFO
accounting of fragments until MF=0 and offset != 0 works perfectly fine.
But is this "fragments must be sent in-order" a reasonable constraint to
build into the spec?

Without that constraint, the implementation requires a good amount more
code to defrag incoming packets... but for vhost/virtio, I'm not sure
the out-of-order case will ever occur because they both simply requeue
at the queue head the partially sent packet. That said, if it is an
unreasonable constraint for the specification, then Linux needs to
support the out-of-order cause even if it doesn't use it.

Best,
Bobby

> >
> > > if (payload_len > iov_len - sizeof(*hdr)) {
> > > + if (le16_to_cpu(hdr->type) == VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_DGRAM) {
> > > + vhost_transport_error(skb, EHOSTUNREACH);
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > payload_len = iov_len - sizeof(*hdr);
> > >
> > > /* As we are copying pieces of large packet's buffer to
> > > @@ -394,6 +429,7 @@ static bool vhost_vsock_more_replies(struct vhost_vsock *vsock)
> > > return val < vq->num;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static bool vhost_transport_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port);
> > > static bool vhost_transport_seqpacket_allow(u32 remote_cid);
> > >
> > > static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> > > @@ -410,7 +446,8 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> > > .cancel_pkt = vhost_transport_cancel_pkt,
> > >
> > > .dgram_enqueue = virtio_transport_dgram_enqueue,
> > > - .dgram_allow = virtio_transport_dgram_allow,
> > > + .dgram_allow = vhost_transport_dgram_allow,
> > > + .dgram_addr_init = virtio_transport_dgram_addr_init,
> > >
> > > .stream_enqueue = virtio_transport_stream_enqueue,
> > > .stream_dequeue = virtio_transport_stream_dequeue,
> > > @@ -443,6 +480,22 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> > > .send_pkt = vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static bool vhost_transport_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port)
> > > +{
> > > + struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > > + bool dgram_allow = false;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + vsock = vhost_vsock_get(cid);
> > > +
> > > + if (vsock)
> > > + dgram_allow = vsock->dgram_allow;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +
> > > + return dgram_allow;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static bool vhost_transport_seqpacket_allow(u32 remote_cid)
> > > {
> > > struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > > @@ -799,6 +852,9 @@ static int vhost_vsock_set_features(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, u64 features)
> > > if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET))
> > > vsock->seqpacket_allow = true;
> > >
> > > + if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_DGRAM))
> > > + vsock->dgram_allow = true;
> > > +
> > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vsock->vqs); i++) {
> > > vq = &vsock->vqs[i];
> > > mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > > index e73f3b2c52f1..449ed63ac2b0 100644
> > > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> > > @@ -1427,9 +1427,12 @@ int vsock_dgram_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
> > > return prot->recvmsg(sk, msg, len, flags, NULL);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > - if (flags & MSG_OOB || flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE)
> > > + if (unlikely(flags & MSG_OOB))
> > > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >
> > > + if (unlikely(flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE))
> > > + return sock_recv_errqueue(sk, msg, len, SOL_VSOCK, 0);
> > > +
> > > transport = vsk->transport;
> > >
> > > /* Retrieve the head sk_buff from the socket's receive queue. */
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.30.2
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Virtualization mailing list
> > Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization