netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Dawson <matthew@mjdsystems.ca>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] datagram: When peeking datagrams with offset < 0 don't skip empty skbs
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:47:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2020045.ridbXvZZ6f@ring00> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-JryS8g=8nB7yq9WVdCOjqSb7uNwncrRfWPmMQbdYrh3w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4304 bytes --]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:27:17 PM EDT Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:18 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >> > If I read the above correctly, you are arguining in favor of the
> >> > addittional flag version, right?
> >> 
> >> I was. Though if we are going to thread the argument from the caller
> >> to __skb_try_recv_from_queue to avoid rereading sk->sk_peek_off,
> > 
> >> on second thought it might be simpler to do it through off:
> > [...]
> > 
> >> This, of course, requires restricting sk_peek_off to protect against
> >> overflow.> 
> > Ok, even if I'm not 100% sure overall this will be simpler when adding
> > also the overflow check.
> 
> Actually, it is safe even without the check. Overflow of the signed integer
> is benign here.
> 
> >> If I'm not mistaken, the test in udp_recvmsg currently incorrectly sets
> >> 
> >> peeking to false when peeking at offset zero:
> >>         peeking = off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
> > 
> > I think you are right, does not look correct.
> 
> By shifting the offset by two, we could even make both assignments
> become correct. Return 0 without peek, 1 on peek without SO_PEEK_OFF,
> 2+ otherwise, including overflow up to INT_MIN + 1.
> 
> But the end result is more readable if we just separate those two
> assignments.
> 
> @@ -1574,7 +1574,8 @@ int udp_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t len, int noblock,
>                 return ip_recv_error(sk, msg, len, addr_len);
> 
>  try_again:
> -       peeking = off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
> +       peeking = flags & MSG_PEEK;
> +       off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
>         skb = __skb_recv_udp(sk, flags, noblock, &peeked, &off, &err);
>         if (!skb)
>                 return err;
> 
> @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ int udpv6_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t len,
>                 return ipv6_recv_rxpmtu(sk, msg, len, addr_len);
> 
>  try_again:
> -       peeking = off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
> +       peeking = flags & MSG_PEEK;
> +       off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);
>         skb = __skb_recv_udp(sk, flags, noblock, &peeked, &off, &err);
>         if (!skb)
>                 return err;
> 
> At which point there is also no longer a need for the variable shift
> at sk_peek_offset. Just pass the raw value down to
> __skb_try_recv_from_queue and disambiguate there:
> 
> @@ -506,11 +506,8 @@ int sk_set_peek_off(struct sock *sk, int val);
> 
>  static inline int sk_peek_offset(struct sock *sk, int flags)
>  {
> -       if (unlikely(flags & MSG_PEEK)) {
> -               s32 off = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_peek_off);
> -               if (off >= 0)
> -                       return off;
> -       }
> +       if (unlikely(flags & MSG_PEEK))
> +               return READ_ONCE(sk->sk_peek_off);
> 
>         return 0;
>  }
> 
> @@ -169,14 +169,20 @@ struct sk_buff *__skb_try_recv_from_queue(struct sock
> *sk, int *peeked, int *off, int *err, struct sk_buff **last)
>  {
> +       bool peek_at_off = false;
>         struct sk_buff *skb;
> -       int _off = *off;
> +       int _off = 0;
> +
> +       if (flags & MSG_PEEK && (*off) >= 0) {
> +               peek_at_off = true;
> +               _off = *off;
> +       }
> 
>         *last = queue->prev;
>         skb_queue_walk(queue, skb) {
>                 if (flags & MSG_PEEK) {
> -                       if (_off >= skb->len && (skb->len || _off ||
> -                                                skb->peeked)) {
> +                       if (peek_at_off && _off >= skb->len &&
> +                           (skb->len || _off || skb->peeked)) {
                                ^ I'm pretty sure we can remove this check 
(that skb->len is not zero) in this if statement.  If _off is zero, then skb-
>len must also be zero (since _off >= skb->len, if _off is 0, skb->len <= 0.  
If skb->len can't be negative, then skb->len <= 0 => skb->len == 0).  If _off 
is not zero, then checking skb->len is redundant.
>                                 _off -= skb->len;
>                                 continue;
>                         }
Is this queued to go in already?  Or can I help by updating my patch with what 
was discussed here?  I can do that today if wanted.

-- 
Matthew

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-08-17 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-14  5:52 [PATCH net] datagram: When peeking datagrams with offset < 0 don't skip empty skbs Matthew Dawson
2017-08-14  9:27 ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-14 14:05   ` Matthew Dawson
2017-08-14 15:03     ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-14 15:31       ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-15  1:35         ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-15 15:40           ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-15 16:45             ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-15 17:00               ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-16  9:28                 ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-16 15:18                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-16 20:20                     ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-16 23:27                       ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-16 23:40                         ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-16 23:55                         ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-17  0:10                           ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-17  9:15                         ` David Laight
2017-08-17 14:37                           ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-17 15:47                         ` Matthew Dawson [this message]
2017-08-17 16:45                           ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-15 18:17               ` Paolo Abeni
2017-08-14 16:06       ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-14 16:33         ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-14 17:02           ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-14 18:25             ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-14 18:33               ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-14 18:46                 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-14 18:58                   ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-14 19:03                     ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-08-14 19:15                       ` Thiago Macieira
2017-08-14 19:39                         ` Willem de Bruijn

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=2020045.ridbXvZZ6f@ring00 \
    --to=matthew@mjdsystems.ca \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=thiago.macieira@intel.com \
    --cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.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).