Re: [PATCH v11 00/18] virtio/vsock: introduce SOCK_SEQPACKET support

Stefano Garzarella
2021-06-11T14:58:08Z

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 05:39:01PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>
>On 11.06.2021 15:25, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> Hi Arseny,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 02:17:00PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> On 11.06.2021 14:07, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>> This patchset implements support of SOCK_SEQPACKET for virtio
>>>> transport.
>>>> As SOCK_SEQPACKET guarantees to save record boundaries, so to
>>>> do it, new bit for field 'flags' was added: SEQ_EOR. This bit is
>>>> set to 1 in last RW packet of message.
>>>> Now as packets of one socket are not reordered neither on vsock
>>>> nor on vhost transport layers, such bit allows to restore original
>>>> message on receiver's side. If user's buffer is smaller than message
>>>> length, when all out of size data is dropped.
>>>> Maximum length of datagram is limited by 'peer_buf_alloc' value.
>>>> Implementation also supports 'MSG_TRUNC' flags.
>>>> Tests also implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to stsp2@yandex.ru for encouragements and initial design
>>>> recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> Arseny Krasnov (18):
>>>> af_vsock: update functions for connectible socket
>>>> af_vsock: separate wait data loop
>>>> af_vsock: separate receive data loop
>>>> af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop
>>>> af_vsock: implement send logic for SEQPACKET
>>>> af_vsock: rest of SEQPACKET support
>>>> af_vsock: update comments for stream sockets
>>>> virtio/vsock: set packet's type in virtio_transport_send_pkt_info()
>>>> virtio/vsock: simplify credit update function API
>>>> virtio/vsock: defines and constants for SEQPACKET
>>>> virtio/vsock: dequeue callback for SOCK_SEQPACKET
>>>> virtio/vsock: add SEQPACKET receive logic
>>>> virtio/vsock: rest of SOCK_SEQPACKET support
>>>> virtio/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>>>> vhost/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>>>> vsock/loopback: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>>>> vsock_test: add SOCK_SEQPACKET tests
>>>> virtio/vsock: update trace event for SEQPACKET
>>>>
>>>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 56 ++-
>>>> include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 10 +
>>>> include/net/af_vsock.h | 8 +
>>>> .../trace/events/vsock_virtio_transport_common.h | 5 +-
>>>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 9 +
>>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 464 ++++++++++++------
>>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 26 ++
>>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 179 +++++++-
>>>> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 12 +
>>>> tools/testing/vsock/util.c | 32 +-
>>>> tools/testing/vsock/util.h | 3 +
>>>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 116 ++++++
>>>> 12 files changed, 730 insertions(+), 190 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> v10 -> v11:
>>>> General changelog:
>>>> - now data is copied to user's buffer only when
>>>> whole message is received.
>>>> - reader is woken up when EOR packet is received.
>>>> - if read syscall was interrupted by signal or
>>>> timeout, error is returned(not 0).
>>>>
>>>> Per patch changelog:
>>>> see every patch after '---' line.
>>> So here is new version for review with updates discussed earlier :)
>> Thanks, I'll review next week, but I suggest you again to split in two
>> series, since patchwork (and netdev maintainers) are not happy with a
>> series of 18 patches.
>>
>> If you still prefer to keep them together during development, then
>> please use the RFC tag.
>>
>> Also did you take a look at the FAQ for netdev that I linked last
>> time?
>> I don't see the net-next tag...
>
>I didn't use next tag because two patches from first seven(which was
>
>considered to be sent to netdev) - 0004 and 0006
>
>were changed in this patchset(because of last ideas about queueing
>
>whole message). So i removed R-b line and now there is no sense to
>
>use net-next tag for first patches. When it will be R-b - i'll send it

Okay, in that case better to use RFC tag.

>to
>
>netdev with such tag and we can continue discussing second part
>
>of patches(virtio specific).

Don't worry for now. You can do it for the next round, but I think all
the patches will go through netdev and would be better to split in 2
series, both of them with net-next tag.

Thanks,
Stefano