Re: [PATCH V5 2/6 net-next] netdevice.h: Add zero-copy flag in netdevice

Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-05-18T16:23:12Z

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:02:23AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 07:38 -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:40 +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > >> >> Not more other restrictions, skb clone is OK.
> > pskb_expand_head()
> > > looks
> > > >> >> OK to me from code review.
> > > >> > Hmm. pskb_expand_head calls skb_release_data while keeping
> > > >> > references to pages. How is that ok? What do I miss?
> > > >> It's making copy of the skb_shinfo earlier, so the pages refcount
> > > >> stays the same.
> > > > Exactly. But the callback is invoked so the guest thinks it's ok
> > to
> > > > change this memory. If it does a corrupted packet will be sent
> > out.
> > >
> > > Hmm. I tool a quick look at skb_clone(), and it looks like this
> > > sequence will break this scheme:
> > >
> > > skb2 = skb_clone(skb...);
> > > kfree_skb(skb) or pskb_expand_head(skb); /* callback called */
> > > [use skb2, pages still referenced]
> > > kfree_skb(skb); /* callback called again */
> > >
> > > This sequence is common in bridge, might be in other places.
> > >
> > > Maybe this ubuf thing should just track clones? This will make it
> > work
> > > on all devices then.
> >
> > The callback was only invoked when last reference of skb was gone.
> > skb_clone does increase skb refcnt. I tested tcpdump on lower device,
> > it
> > worked.
> >
> > For the sequence of:
> >
> > skb_clone -> last refcnt + 1
> > kfree_skb() or pskb_expand_head -> callback not called
> > kfree_skb() -> callback called
> >
> > I will check page refcount to see whether it's balanced.
>
> The page refcounts are balanced too.
>
> In macvtap/vhost Real NIC zerocopy case, it always goes to fastpath in
> pskb_expand_head, so I didn't hit any issue.
>
> But rethinking about pskb_expand_head(), it calls skb_release_data() to
> free old skb head when it's not in the fastpath (pskb_expand_head is not
> the last reference of this skb); And it's impossible to track which skb
> head (old one or new one) will be the last one to free. So better to
> return error for zero-copy skbs when not using fastpath. Does it make
> sense?

I'm not sure it does. Look e.g. at tg3 - if expand_head fails
packet gets dropped. No crash but unlikely to perform well :).

> Besides this, any other issue?
>
>
> Thanks
> Shirley