Re: [PATCH net-next v3 09/24] ovpn: implement basic TX path (UDP)

Sabrina Dubroca
2024-05-12T21:35:40Z

2024-05-06, 03:16:22 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> +/* send skb to connected peer, if any */
> +static void ovpn_queue_skb(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn, struct sk_buff *skb,
> + struct ovpn_peer *peer)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (likely(!peer))
> + /* retrieve peer serving the destination IP of this packet */
> + peer = ovpn_peer_get_by_dst(ovpn, skb);
> + if (unlikely(!peer)) {
> + net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: no peer to send data to\n",
> + ovpn->dev->name);
> + goto drop;
> + }
> +
> + ret = ptr_ring_produce_bh(&peer->tx_ring, skb);
> + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> + net_err_ratelimited("%s: cannot queue packet to TX ring\n",
> + peer->ovpn->dev->name);
> + goto drop;
> + }
> +
> + if (!queue_work(ovpn->crypto_wq, &peer->encrypt_work))
> + ovpn_peer_put(peer);

I wanted to come back to this after going through the crypto patch,
because this felt like a strange construct when I first looked at this
patch.

Why are you using a workqueue here? Based on the kdoc for crypto_wq
("used to schedule crypto work that may sleep during TX/RX"), it's to
deal with async crypto.

If so, why not use the more standard way of dealing with async crypto
in contexts that cannot sleep, ie letting the crypto core call the
"done" callback asynchronously? You need to do all the proper refcount
handling, but IMO it's cleaner and simpler than this workqueue and
ptr_ring. You can see an example of that in macsec (macsec_encrypt_*
in drivers/net/macsec.c).

--
Sabrina