Re: [PATCH 10/18] nvme-tcp: fixup send workflow for kTLS

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 18:51:09 +0300 Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> What I'm assuming that Hannes is tripping on is that tls does
> not accept when this flag is sent to sock_no_sendpage, which
> is simply calling sendmsg. TLS will not accept this flag when
> passed to sendmsg IIUC.
> 
> Today the rough logic in nvme send path is:
> 
> 	if (more_coming(queue)) {
> 		flags = MSG_MORE | MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST;
> 	} else {
> 		flags = MSG_EOR;
> 	}
> 
> 	if (!sendpage_ok(page)) {
> 		kernel_sendpage();
> 	} else {
> 		sock_no_sendpage();
> 	}
> 
> This pattern (note that sock_no_sednpage was added later following bug
> reports where nvme attempted to sendpage a slab allocated page), is
> perfectly acceptable with normal sockets, but not with TLS.
> 
> So there are two options:
> 1. have tls accept MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST in sendmsg (called from
>     sock_no_sendpage)
> 2. Make nvme set MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST only when calling
>     kernel_sendpage and clear it when calling sock_no_sendpage
> 
> If you say that MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST must be cleared when calling
> sock_no_sendpage and it is a bug that it isn't enforced for normal tcp
> sockets, then we need to change nvme, but I did not find
> any documentation that indicates it, and right now, normal sockets
> behave differently than tls sockets (wrt this flag in particular).
> 
> Hope this clarifies.

Oh right, it does, the context evaporated from my head over the weekend.

IMHO it's best if the caller passes the right flags. The semantics of
MSG_MORE vs NOTLAST are quite murky and had already caused bugs in the
past :(

See commit d452d48b9f8b ("tls: prevent oversized sendfile() hangs by
ignoring MSG_MORE")

Alternatively we could have sock_no_sendpage drop NOTLAST to help
all protos. But if we consider sendfile behavior as the standard
simply clearing it isn't right, it should be a:

	more = (flags & (MORE | NOTLAST)) == MORE | NOTLAST
	flags &= ~(MORE | NOTLAST)
	if (more)
		flags |= MORE