Re: [PATCH net-next v9 11/14] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

Mina Almasry
2024-05-28T17:36:54Z

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:02 PM David Wei <dw@davidwei.uk> wrote:
>
> On 2024-05-10 16:21, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > +/* On error, returns the -errno. On success, returns number of bytes sent to the
> > + * user. May not consume all of @remaining_len.
> > + */
> > +static int tcp_recvmsg_dmabuf(struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb,
> > + unsigned int offset, struct msghdr *msg,
> > + int remaining_len)
> > +{
> > + struct dmabuf_cmsg dmabuf_cmsg = { 0 };
> > + struct tcp_xa_pool tcp_xa_pool;
> > + unsigned int start;
> > + int i, copy, n;
> > + int sent = 0;
> > + int err = 0;
> > +
> > + tcp_xa_pool.max = 0;
> > + tcp_xa_pool.idx = 0;
> > + do {
> > + start = skb_headlen(skb);
> > +
> > + if (skb_frags_readable(skb)) {
> > + err = -ENODEV;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Copy header. */
> > + copy = start - offset;
> > + if (copy > 0) {
> > + copy = min(copy, remaining_len);
> > +
> > + n = copy_to_iter(skb->data + offset, copy,
> > + &msg->msg_iter);
> > + if (n != copy) {
> > + err = -EFAULT;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + offset += copy;
> > + remaining_len -= copy;
> > +
> > + /* First a dmabuf_cmsg for # bytes copied to user
> > + * buffer.
> > + */
> > + memset(&dmabuf_cmsg, 0, sizeof(dmabuf_cmsg));
> > + dmabuf_cmsg.frag_size = copy;
> > + err = put_cmsg(msg, SOL_SOCKET, SO_DEVMEM_LINEAR,
> > + sizeof(dmabuf_cmsg), &dmabuf_cmsg);
> > + if (err || msg->msg_flags & MSG_CTRUNC) {
> > + msg->msg_flags &= ~MSG_CTRUNC;
> > + if (!err)
> > + err = -ETOOSMALL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + sent += copy;
> > +
> > + if (remaining_len == 0)
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* after that, send information of dmabuf pages through a
> > + * sequence of cmsg
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) {
> > + skb_frag_t *frag = &skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i];
> > + struct net_iov *niov;
> > + u64 frag_offset;
> > + int end;
> > +
> > + /* !skb_frags_readable() should indicate that ALL the
> > + * frags in this skb are dmabuf net_iovs. We're checking
> > + * for that flag above, but also check individual frags
> > + * here. If the tcp stack is not setting
> > + * skb_frags_readable() correctly, we still don't want
> > + * to crash here.
> > + */
> > + if (!skb_frag_net_iov(frag)) {
> > + net_err_ratelimited("Found non-dmabuf skb with net_iov");
> > + err = -ENODEV;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + niov = skb_frag_net_iov(frag);
>
> Sorry if we've already discussed this.
>
> We have this additional hunk:
>
> + if (niov->pp->mp_ops != &dmabuf_devmem_ops) {
> + err = -ENODEV;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> In case one of our skbs end up here, skb_frag_is_net_iov() and
> !skb_frags_readable(). Does this even matter? And if so then is there a
> better way to distinguish between our two types of net_iovs?

Thanks for bringing this up, yes, maybe we do need a way to
distinguish, but it's not 100% critical, no? It's mostly for debug
checking?

I would say add a helper, like net_iov_is_dmabuf() or net_iov_is_io_uring().

Checking for niov->pp->mp_ops seems a bit hacky to me, and may be
outright broken. IIRC niov's can be disconnected from the page_pool
via page_pool_clear_pp_info(), and niov->pp may be null. Abstractly
speaking the niov type maybe should be a property of the niov itself,
and not the pp the niov is attached to.

It is not immediately obvious to me what the best thing to do here is,
maybe it's best to add a flag to niov or to use niov->pp_magic for
this.

I would humbly ask that your follow up patchset takes care of this
bit, if possible. I think mine is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting
as is (and I think may be close to ready?), when it comes to concerns
of devmem + io_uring coexisting if you're able to take care, awesome,
if not, I can look into squashing some fix.

--
Thanks,
Mina