Re: [net-next v2 1/8] net-zerocopy: Copy straggler unaligned data for TCP Rx. zerocopy.

[Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com>]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:03 AM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Arjun Roy
> > Sent: 03 December 2020 23:25
> ...
> > > > You also have to allow for old (working) applications being recompiled
> > > > with the new headers.
> > > > So you cannot rely on the fields being zero even if you are passed
> > > > the size of the structure.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this should already be taken care of in the current code; the
> > > full-sized struct with new fields is being zero-initialized, then
> > > we're getting the user-provided optlen, then copying from userspace
> > > only that much data. So the newer fields would be zero in that case,
> > > so this should handle the case of new kernels but old applications.
> > > Does this address the concern, or am I misunderstanding?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, on closer read, perhaps the following is what you have in
> > mind for the old application?
> >
> > struct zerocopy_args args;
> > args.address = ...;
> > args.length = ...;
> > args.recv_skip_hint = ...;
> > args.inq = ...;
> > args.err = ...;
> > getsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE, &args, sizeof(args));
> > // sizeof(args) is now bigger when recompiled with new headers, but we
> > did not explicitly set the new fields to 0, therefore issues
>
> That's the one...
>

I'll defer in this case to Eric's previous response in this thread
(paraphrased: that there is precedent for this in tcp_mmap.c).

-Arjun

>         David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)