Re: [PATCH net-next v5 3/9] net: devmem: Implement TX path

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On 2/22/25 8:15 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
[...]
> @@ -119,6 +122,13 @@ void net_devmem_unbind_dmabuf(struct net_devmem_dmabuf_binding *binding)
>  	unsigned long xa_idx;
>  	unsigned int rxq_idx;
>  
> +	xa_erase(&net_devmem_dmabuf_bindings, binding->id);
> +
> +	/* Ensure no tx net_devmem_lookup_dmabuf() are in flight after the
> +	 * erase.
> +	 */
> +	synchronize_net();

Is the above statement always true? can the dmabuf being stuck in some
qdisc? or even some local socket due to redirect?

> @@ -252,13 +261,23 @@ net_devmem_bind_dmabuf(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int dmabuf_fd,
>  	 * binding can be much more flexible than that. We may be able to
>  	 * allocate MTU sized chunks here. Leave that for future work...
>  	 */
> -	binding->chunk_pool =
> -		gen_pool_create(PAGE_SHIFT, dev_to_node(&dev->dev));
> +	binding->chunk_pool = gen_pool_create(PAGE_SHIFT,
> +					      dev_to_node(&dev->dev));
>  	if (!binding->chunk_pool) {
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto err_unmap;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (direction == DMA_TO_DEVICE) {
> +		binding->tx_vec = kvmalloc_array(dmabuf->size / PAGE_SIZE,
> +						 sizeof(struct net_iov *),
> +						 GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!binding->tx_vec) {
> +			err = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto err_free_chunks;

Possibly my comment on v3 has been lost:

"""
It looks like the later error paths (in the for_each_sgtable_dma_sg()
loop) could happen even for 'direction == DMA_TO_DEVICE', so I guess an
additional error label is needed to clean tx_vec on such paths.
"""

[...]
> @@ -1071,6 +1072,16 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
>  
>  	flags = msg->msg_flags;
>  
> +	sockc = (struct sockcm_cookie){ .tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags),
> +					.dmabuf_id = 0 };
> +	if (msg->msg_controllen) {
> +		err = sock_cmsg_send(sk, msg, &sockc);
> +		if (unlikely(err)) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_err;
> +		}
> +	}

I'm unsure how much that would be a problem, but it looks like that
unblocking sendmsg(MSG_FASTOPEN) with bad msg argument will start to
fail on top of this patch, while they should be successful (EINPROGRESS)
before.

/P