From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: net: allow to propagate errors through ->ndo_hard_start_xmit()
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:57:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091110175736.GB4195@ami.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AF9A36F.7070807@trash.net>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:31:27PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 08:41:36PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >> I've updated my patch to propagate error values (errno and NET_XMIT
> >> codes) through ndo_hard_start_xmit() and incorporated the suggestions
> >> made last time, namely:
> >>
> >> - move slightly complicated return value check to inline function and
> >> add a few comments
> >>
> >> - fix error handling while in the middle of transmitting GSO skbs
> >>
> >> I've also audited the tree once again for invalid return values and
> >> found a single remaining instance in a Wimax driver, I'll take care
> >> of that later.
> >>
> >> Two questions remain:
> >>
> >> - I'm not sure the error handling in dev_hard_start_xmit() for GSO
> >> skbs is optimal. When the driver returns an error, it is assumed
> >> the current segment has been freed. The patch then frees the
> >> entire GSO skb, including all remaining segments. Alternatively
> >> it could try to transmit the remaining segments later.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems this freeing should be described in the changelog,
> > if not moved to a separate patch, since it fixes another problem,
> > unless I forgot something.
>
> What other problem are you refering to? I'm not aware of any
> problems in the existing function.
This patch is about propagating errors, so it's not clear why there
are some additional kfrees mixed with this. (But I see it's explained
below.)
>
> >> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> >> index bf629ac..1f5752d 100644
> >> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> >> @@ -1756,7 +1756,7 @@ int dev_hard_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> >> struct netdev_queue *txq)
> >> {
> >> const struct net_device_ops *ops = dev->netdev_ops;
> >> - int rc;
> >> + int rc = NETDEV_TX_OK;
> >
> > Isn't it enough to add this in one place only: before this
> > "goto out_kfree_skb"?
>
> Its only exists once in the version I sent out earlier.
>
> >> if (likely(!skb->next)) {
> >> if (!list_empty(&ptype_all))
> >> @@ -1804,6 +1804,8 @@ gso:
> >> nskb->next = NULL;
> >> rc = ops->ndo_start_xmit(nskb, dev);
> >> if (unlikely(rc != NETDEV_TX_OK)) {
> >> + if (rc & ~NETDEV_TX_MASK)
> >> + goto out_kfree_gso_skb;
> >
> > If e.g. (rc == NETDEV_TX_OK | NET_XMIT_CN), why exactly is this freeing
> > necessary now?
> >
> > Is e.g. (rc == NETDEV_TX_BUSY | NET_XMIT_CN) legal? If so, there would
> > be use after kfree, I guess. Otherwise, it should be documented above
> > (and maybe checked somewhere as well).
>
> NET_XMIT_CN is a valid return value, yes. But its not freeing the
> transmitted segment but the remaining ones. Its not strictly
> necessary, but its the easiest way to treat all errors similar.
> Otherwise you get complicated cases, f.i. when the driver returns
> NET_XMIT_CN for the first segment and NETDEV_TX_OK for the
> remaining ones.
It should be in the changelog and maybe a comment too. Even if it's
right it's a change of functionality/behavior here.
I still don't know if/why (rc == NETDEV_TX_BUSY | NET_XMIT_CN) is
OK. IMHO skb will be requeued after kfree here.
>
> >> nskb->next = skb->next;
> >> skb->next = nskb;
> >> return rc;
> >> @@ -1813,11 +1815,14 @@ gso:
> >> return NETDEV_TX_BUSY;
> >> } while (skb->next);
> >>
> >> - skb->destructor = DEV_GSO_CB(skb)->destructor;
> >> + rc = NETDEV_TX_OK;
> >
> > When is (rc != NETDEV_TX_OK) possible in this place?
>
> Its gone in the current version.
Why don't you send the current version?
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-10 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-09 19:41 RFC: net: allow to propagate errors through ->ndo_hard_start_xmit() Patrick McHardy
2009-11-09 19:50 ` Herbert Xu
2009-11-10 11:04 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-11-10 17:08 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-11-10 17:31 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-11-10 17:57 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2009-11-10 18:20 ` Patrick McHardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091110175736.GB4195@ami.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).