[PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[Michal Luczaj]

Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
and strp_msg::full_len are updated.

Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
regard to errno EAGAIN:

   SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was specified in flags or one of the file descriptors
   had been marked as nonblocking (O_NONBLOCK), and the operation would
   block.

Fixes: 5121197ecc5d ("kcm: close race conditions on sk_receive_queue")
Fixes: 91687355b927 ("kcm: Splice support")
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
---
 net/kcm/kcmsock.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/kcm/kcmsock.c b/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
index 24aec295a51cf737912f1aefe81556bd9f23331e..c05047dad62d7e201c950ab98af6dc7f0d48276c 100644
--- a/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
+++ b/net/kcm/kcmsock.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
 #include <linux/rculist.h>
 #include <linux/skbuff.h>
 #include <linux/socket.h>
+#include <linux/splice.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 #include <linux/workqueue.h>
 #include <linux/syscalls.h>
@@ -1030,6 +1031,11 @@ static ssize_t kcm_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
 	ssize_t copied;
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 
+	if (sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK || flags & SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK)
+		flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
+	else
+		flags = 0;
+
 	/* Only support splice for SOCKSEQPACKET */
 
 	skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, &err);

---
base-commit: c8f13134349b4385ae739f1efe403d5d3949ef92
change-id: 20250619-kcm-splice-01cb39a5997b

Best regards,
-- 
Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>

Re: [PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:33:04 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
> Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
> skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
> confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
> and strp_msg::full_len are updated.
> 
> Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
> SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
> regard to errno EAGAIN:
> 
>    SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was specified in flags or one of the file descriptors
>    had been marked as nonblocking (O_NONBLOCK), and the operation would
>    block.

Coincidentally looks like we're not honoring

	sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK 

in TLS..

Re: [PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:33:04 +0200 you wrote:
> Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
> skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
> confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
> and strp_msg::full_len are updated.
> 
> Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
> SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
> regard to errno EAGAIN:
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net] kcm: Fix splice support
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/9063de636cee

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

Re: [PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[Michal Luczaj]

On 7/31/25 03:02, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:33:04 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
>> skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
>> confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
>> and strp_msg::full_len are updated.
>>
>> Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
>> SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
>> regard to errno EAGAIN:
>>
>>    SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was specified in flags or one of the file descriptors
>>    had been marked as nonblocking (O_NONBLOCK), and the operation would
>>    block.
> 
> Coincidentally looks like we're not honoring
> 
> 	sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK 
> 
> in TLS..

I'm a bit confused.

Comparing AF_UNIX and pure (non-TLS) TCP, I see two non-blocking-splice
interpretations. Unix socket doesn't block on `f_flags & O_NONBLOCK ||
flags & SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK` (which this patch follows), while TCP, after
commit 42324c627043 ("net: splice() from tcp to pipe should take into
account O_NONBLOCK"), honours O_NONBLOCK and ignores SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK.

Should KCM (and TLS) follow TCP behaviour instead?

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 12:00:38 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
> On 7/31/25 03:02, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:33:04 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:  
> >> Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
> >> skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
> >> confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
> >> and strp_msg::full_len are updated.
> >>
> >> Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
> >> SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
> >> regard to errno EAGAIN:
> >>
> >>    SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was specified in flags or one of the file descriptors
> >>    had been marked as nonblocking (O_NONBLOCK), and the operation would
> >>    block.  
> > 
> > Coincidentally looks like we're not honoring
> > 
> > 	sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK 
> > 
> > in TLS..  
> 
> I'm a bit confused.
> 
> Comparing AF_UNIX and pure (non-TLS) TCP, I see two non-blocking-splice
> interpretations. Unix socket doesn't block on `f_flags & O_NONBLOCK ||
> flags & SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK` (which this patch follows), while TCP, after
> commit 42324c627043 ("net: splice() from tcp to pipe should take into
> account O_NONBLOCK"), honours O_NONBLOCK and ignores SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK.
> 
> Should KCM (and TLS) follow TCP behaviour instead?

I didn't look closely, but FWIW - yes, in principle KCM and TLS should
copy TCP.

Re: [PATCH net] kcm: Fix splice support

[Michal Luczaj]

On 8/5/25 01:51, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 12:00:38 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> On 7/31/25 03:02, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:33:04 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:  
>>>> Flags passed in for splice() syscall should not end up in
>>>> skb_recv_datagram(). As SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK == MSG_PEEK, kernel gets
>>>> confused: skb isn't unlinked from a receive queue, while strp_msg::offset
>>>> and strp_msg::full_len are updated.
>>>>
>>>> Unbreak the logic a bit more by mapping both O_NONBLOCK and
>>>> SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK to MSG_DONTWAIT. This way we align with man splice(2) in
>>>> regard to errno EAGAIN:
>>>>
>>>>    SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was specified in flags or one of the file descriptors
>>>>    had been marked as nonblocking (O_NONBLOCK), and the operation would
>>>>    block.  
>>>
>>> Coincidentally looks like we're not honoring
>>>
>>> 	sock->file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK 
>>>
>>> in TLS..  
>>
>> I'm a bit confused.
>>
>> Comparing AF_UNIX and pure (non-TLS) TCP, I see two non-blocking-splice
>> interpretations. Unix socket doesn't block on `f_flags & O_NONBLOCK ||
>> flags & SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK` (which this patch follows), while TCP, after
>> commit 42324c627043 ("net: splice() from tcp to pipe should take into
>> account O_NONBLOCK"), honours O_NONBLOCK and ignores SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK.
>>
>> Should KCM (and TLS) follow TCP behaviour instead?
> 
> I didn't look closely, but FWIW - yes, in principle KCM and TLS should
> copy TCP.

Ugh, so this KCM patch is incorrect. Sorry, I'll submit a follow up
tweaking KCM and TLS, as suggested.

Note about SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK: besides AF_UNIX, it is also honoured in
AF_SMC and tracefs.