* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 3/6] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing [not found] ` <20210903123238.3273526-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> @ 2021-09-03 12:51 ` Stefano Garzarella 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-09-03 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arseny Krasnov Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, Michael S. Tsirkin, netdev, stsp2, linux-kernel, virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:32:35PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >'MSG_EOR' handling has similar logic as 'MSG_EOM' - if bit present >in packet's header, reset it to 0. Then restore it back if packet >processing wasn't completed. Instead of bool variable for each >flag, bit mask variable was added: it has logical OR of 'MSG_EOR' >and 'MSG_EOM' if needed, to restore flags, this variable is ORed >with flags field of packet. > >Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> >--- > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 22 +++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >index feaf650affbe..938aefbc75ec 100644 >--- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >+++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c >@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, > size_t nbytes; > size_t iov_len, payload_len; > int head; >- bool restore_flag = false; >+ u32 flags_to_restore = 0; > > spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock); > if (list_empty(&vsock->send_pkt_list)) { >@@ -179,15 +179,20 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, > * created dynamically and are initialized with header > * of current packet(except length). But in case of > * SOCK_SEQPACKET, we also must clear message delimeter >- * bit(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM). Otherwise, instead of one >- * packet with delimeter(which marks end of message), >- * there will be sequence of packets with delimeter >- * bit set. After initialized header will be copied to >- * rx buffer, this bit will be restored. >+ * bit (VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) and MSG_EOR bit >+ * (VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR) if set. Otherwise, >+ * there will be sequence of packets with these >+ * bits set. After initialized header will be copied to >+ * rx buffer, these required bits will be restored. > */ > if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM) { > pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM); >- restore_flag = true; >+ flags_to_restore |= VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM; >+ >+ if (le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.flags) & VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR) { >+ pkt->hdr.flags &= ~cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR); >+ flags_to_restore |= VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR; >+ } > } > } > >@@ -224,8 +229,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, > * to send it with the next available buffer. > */ > if (pkt->off < pkt->len) { >- if (restore_flag) >- pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM); >+ pkt->hdr.flags |= cpu_to_le32(flags_to_restore); > > /* We are queueing the same virtio_vsock_pkt to > handle > * the remaining bytes, and we want to deliver it >-- >2.25.1 > Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET [not found] <20210903123016.3272800-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> [not found] ` <20210903123238.3273526-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> @ 2021-09-05 15:55 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [not found] ` <4558e96b-6330-667f-955b-b689986f884f@kaspersky.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2021-09-05 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arseny Krasnov Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm, netdev, stsp2, linux-kernel, virtualization, oxffffaa, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:30:13PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET > AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. > First we need to define 'messages' and 'records' like this: > Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' > etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using > return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. > Current implementation based on message definition above. > Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, > and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from > 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and > receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. > Idea of patchset comes from POSIX: it says that SEQPACKET > supports record boundaries which are visible for receiver using > MSG_EOR bit. So, it looks like MSG_EOR is enough thing for SEQPACKET > and we don't need to maintain boundaries of corresponding send - > receive system calls. But, for 'sendXXX()' and 'recXXX()' POSIX says, > that all these calls operates with messages, e.g. 'sendXXX()' sends > message, while 'recXXX()' reads messages and for SEQPACKET, 'recXXX()' > must read one entire message from socket, dropping all out of size > bytes. Thus, both message boundaries and MSG_EOR bit must be supported > to follow POSIX rules. > To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing > 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it > works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' > is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. > This patchset includes simple test for MSG_EOR. I'm prepared to merge this for this window, but I'm not sure who's supposed to ack the net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c bits. It's a harmless variable renaming so maybe it does not matter. The rest is virtio stuff so I guess my tree is ok. Objections, anyone? > Arseny Krasnov(6): > virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit. > virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit. > vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > virtio/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop > vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR > > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------- > include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 3 ++- > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 ++++---- > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 23 ++++++++++++------- > tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 8 ++++++- > 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > v4 -> v5: > - Move bitwise and out of le32_to_cpu() in 0003. > > v3 -> v4: > - 'sendXXX()' renamed to 'send*()' in 0002- commit msg. > - Comment about bit restore updated in 0003-. > - 'same' renamed to 'similar' in 0003- commit msg. > - u32 used instead of uint32_t in 0003-. > > v2 -> v3: > - 'virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit.' - commit message updated. > - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit add moved to separate patch. > - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - commit message > updated. > - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - removed unneeded > 'le32_to_cpu()', because input argument was already in CPU > endianness. > > v1 -> v2: > - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is renamed to 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM', to > support backward compatibility. > - use bitmask of flags to restore in vhost.c, instead of separated > bool variable for each flag. > - test for EAGAIN removed, as logically it is not part of this > patchset(will be sent separately). > - cover letter updated(added part with POSIX description). > > Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> > -- > 2.25.1 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4558e96b-6330-667f-955b-b689986f884f@kaspersky.com>]
* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET [not found] ` <4558e96b-6330-667f-955b-b689986f884f@kaspersky.com> @ 2021-09-05 16:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [not found] ` <5b20410a-fb8f-2e38-59d9-74dc6b8a9d4f@kaspersky.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2021-09-05 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arseny Krasnov Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stsp2@yandex.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, oxffffaa@gmail.com, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:02:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > > On 05.09.2021 18:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:30:13PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > >> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET > >> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. > >> First we need to define 'messages' and 'records' like this: > >> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' > >> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using > >> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. > >> Current implementation based on message definition above. > >> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, > >> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from > >> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and > >> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. > >> Idea of patchset comes from POSIX: it says that SEQPACKET > >> supports record boundaries which are visible for receiver using > >> MSG_EOR bit. So, it looks like MSG_EOR is enough thing for SEQPACKET > >> and we don't need to maintain boundaries of corresponding send - > >> receive system calls. But, for 'sendXXX()' and 'recXXX()' POSIX says, > >> that all these calls operates with messages, e.g. 'sendXXX()' sends > >> message, while 'recXXX()' reads messages and for SEQPACKET, 'recXXX()' > >> must read one entire message from socket, dropping all out of size > >> bytes. Thus, both message boundaries and MSG_EOR bit must be supported > >> to follow POSIX rules. > >> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing > >> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it > >> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' > >> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. > >> This patchset includes simple test for MSG_EOR. > > > > I'm prepared to merge this for this window, > > but I'm not sure who's supposed to ack the net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > > bits. It's a harmless variable renaming so maybe it does not matter. > > > > The rest is virtio stuff so I guess my tree is ok. > > > > Objections, anyone? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/3/76 this is v4. It is same as v5 in af_vsock.c changes. > > It has Reviewed by from Stefano Garzarella. Is Stefano the maintainer for af_vsock then? I wasn't sure. > > > > > >> Arseny Krasnov(6): > >> virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit. > >> virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit. > >> vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > >> virtio/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > >> af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop > >> vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR > >> > >> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------- > >> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 3 ++- > >> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 ++++---- > >> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 23 ++++++++++++------- > >> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 8 ++++++- > >> 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > >> > >> v4 -> v5: > >> - Move bitwise and out of le32_to_cpu() in 0003. > >> > >> v3 -> v4: > >> - 'sendXXX()' renamed to 'send*()' in 0002- commit msg. > >> - Comment about bit restore updated in 0003-. > >> - 'same' renamed to 'similar' in 0003- commit msg. > >> - u32 used instead of uint32_t in 0003-. > >> > >> v2 -> v3: > >> - 'virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit.' - commit message updated. > >> - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit add moved to separate patch. > >> - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - commit message > >> updated. > >> - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - removed unneeded > >> 'le32_to_cpu()', because input argument was already in CPU > >> endianness. > >> > >> v1 -> v2: > >> - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is renamed to 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM', to > >> support backward compatibility. > >> - use bitmask of flags to restore in vhost.c, instead of separated > >> bool variable for each flag. > >> - test for EAGAIN removed, as logically it is not part of this > >> patchset(will be sent separately). > >> - cover letter updated(added part with POSIX description). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5b20410a-fb8f-2e38-59d9-74dc6b8a9d4f@kaspersky.com>]
* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET [not found] ` <5b20410a-fb8f-2e38-59d9-74dc6b8a9d4f@kaspersky.com> @ 2021-09-05 20:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-09-06 7:33 ` Stefano Garzarella 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2021-09-05 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arseny Krasnov Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stsp2@yandex.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, oxffffaa@gmail.com, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, David S. Miller On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:21:10PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > > On 05.09.2021 19:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:02:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > >> On 05.09.2021 18:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:30:13PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > >>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET > >>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. > >>>> First we need to define 'messages' and 'records' like this: > >>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' > >>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using > >>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. > >>>> Current implementation based on message definition above. > >>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, > >>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from > >>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and > >>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. > >>>> Idea of patchset comes from POSIX: it says that SEQPACKET > >>>> supports record boundaries which are visible for receiver using > >>>> MSG_EOR bit. So, it looks like MSG_EOR is enough thing for SEQPACKET > >>>> and we don't need to maintain boundaries of corresponding send - > >>>> receive system calls. But, for 'sendXXX()' and 'recXXX()' POSIX says, > >>>> that all these calls operates with messages, e.g. 'sendXXX()' sends > >>>> message, while 'recXXX()' reads messages and for SEQPACKET, 'recXXX()' > >>>> must read one entire message from socket, dropping all out of size > >>>> bytes. Thus, both message boundaries and MSG_EOR bit must be supported > >>>> to follow POSIX rules. > >>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing > >>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it > >>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' > >>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. > >>>> This patchset includes simple test for MSG_EOR. > >>> I'm prepared to merge this for this window, > >>> but I'm not sure who's supposed to ack the net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > >>> bits. It's a harmless variable renaming so maybe it does not matter. > >>> > >>> The rest is virtio stuff so I guess my tree is ok. > >>> > >>> Objections, anyone? > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/3/76 this is v4. It is same as v5 in af_vsock.c changes. > >> > >> It has Reviewed by from Stefano Garzarella. > > Is Stefano the maintainer for af_vsock then? > > I wasn't sure. > Ack, let's wait for maintainer's comment The specific patch is a trivial variable renaming so I parked this in my tree for now, will merge unless I hear any objections in the next couple of days. > >>> > >>>> Arseny Krasnov(6): > >>>> virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit. > >>>> virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit. > >>>> vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > >>>> virtio/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing > >>>> af_vsock: rename variables in receive loop > >>>> vsock_test: update message bounds test for MSG_EOR > >>>> > >>>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------- > >>>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 3 ++- > >>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 ++++---- > >>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 23 ++++++++++++------- > >>>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 8 ++++++- > >>>> 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> v4 -> v5: > >>>> - Move bitwise and out of le32_to_cpu() in 0003. > >>>> > >>>> v3 -> v4: > >>>> - 'sendXXX()' renamed to 'send*()' in 0002- commit msg. > >>>> - Comment about bit restore updated in 0003-. > >>>> - 'same' renamed to 'similar' in 0003- commit msg. > >>>> - u32 used instead of uint32_t in 0003-. > >>>> > >>>> v2 -> v3: > >>>> - 'virtio/vsock: rename 'EOR' to 'EOM' bit.' - commit message updated. > >>>> - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' bit add moved to separate patch. > >>>> - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - commit message > >>>> updated. > >>>> - 'vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing' - removed unneeded > >>>> 'le32_to_cpu()', because input argument was already in CPU > >>>> endianness. > >>>> > >>>> v1 -> v2: > >>>> - 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is renamed to 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM', to > >>>> support backward compatibility. > >>>> - use bitmask of flags to restore in vhost.c, instead of separated > >>>> bool variable for each flag. > >>>> - test for EAGAIN removed, as logically it is not part of this > >>>> patchset(will be sent separately). > >>>> - cover letter updated(added part with POSIX description). > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.25.1 > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET 2021-09-05 20:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2021-09-06 7:33 ` Stefano Garzarella 2021-09-06 8:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-09-06 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stsp2@yandex.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, oxffffaa@gmail.com, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Arseny Krasnov, David S. Miller On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 04:18:52PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:21:10PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> >> On 05.09.2021 19:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:02:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> >> On 05.09.2021 18:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:30:13PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> >>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET >> >>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. >> >>>> First we need to define 'messages' and 'records' like this: >> >>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' >> >>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using >> >>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. >> >>>> Current implementation based on message definition above. >> >>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, >> >>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from >> >>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and >> >>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. >> >>>> Idea of patchset comes from POSIX: it says that SEQPACKET >> >>>> supports record boundaries which are visible for receiver using >> >>>> MSG_EOR bit. So, it looks like MSG_EOR is enough thing for SEQPACKET >> >>>> and we don't need to maintain boundaries of corresponding send - >> >>>> receive system calls. But, for 'sendXXX()' and 'recXXX()' POSIX says, >> >>>> that all these calls operates with messages, e.g. 'sendXXX()' sends >> >>>> message, while 'recXXX()' reads messages and for SEQPACKET, 'recXXX()' >> >>>> must read one entire message from socket, dropping all out of size >> >>>> bytes. Thus, both message boundaries and MSG_EOR bit must be supported >> >>>> to follow POSIX rules. >> >>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing >> >>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it >> >>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' >> >>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. >> >>>> This patchset includes simple test for MSG_EOR. >> >>> I'm prepared to merge this for this window, >> >>> but I'm not sure who's supposed to ack the net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> >>> bits. It's a harmless variable renaming so maybe it does not matter. >> >>> >> >>> The rest is virtio stuff so I guess my tree is ok. >> >>> >> >>> Objections, anyone? >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/3/76 this is v4. It is same as v5 in af_vsock.c changes. >> >> >> >> It has Reviewed by from Stefano Garzarella. >> > Is Stefano the maintainer for af_vsock then? >> > I wasn't sure. I'm maintaining virtio-vsock stuff, but I'm reviewing most of the af_vsock patches. We don't have an entry for it in MAINTAINERS, maybe we should. >> Ack, let's wait for maintainer's comment > > >The specific patch is a trivial variable renaming so >I parked this in my tree for now, will merge unless I >hear any objections in the next couple of days. I agree, I think your tree is fine, since this series is mostly about virtio-vsock. Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET 2021-09-06 7:33 ` Stefano Garzarella @ 2021-09-06 8:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2021-09-06 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: Andra Paraschiv, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stsp2@yandex.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, oxffffaa@gmail.com, Norbert Slusarek, Stefan Hajnoczi, Jakub Kicinski, Colin Ian King, Arseny Krasnov, David S. Miller On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 09:33:15AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 04:18:52PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:21:10PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > > > > > > On 05.09.2021 19:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:02:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > > > >> On 05.09.2021 18:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 03:30:13PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: > > > >>>> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET > > > >>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. > > > >>>> First we need to define 'messages' and 'records' like this: > > > >>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' > > > >>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using > > > >>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. > > > >>>> Current implementation based on message definition above. > > > >>>> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, > > > >>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from > > > >>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and > > > >>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. > > > >>>> Idea of patchset comes from POSIX: it says that SEQPACKET > > > >>>> supports record boundaries which are visible for receiver using > > > >>>> MSG_EOR bit. So, it looks like MSG_EOR is enough thing for SEQPACKET > > > >>>> and we don't need to maintain boundaries of corresponding send - > > > >>>> receive system calls. But, for 'sendXXX()' and 'recXXX()' POSIX says, > > > >>>> that all these calls operates with messages, e.g. 'sendXXX()' sends > > > >>>> message, while 'recXXX()' reads messages and for SEQPACKET, 'recXXX()' > > > >>>> must read one entire message from socket, dropping all out of size > > > >>>> bytes. Thus, both message boundaries and MSG_EOR bit must be supported > > > >>>> to follow POSIX rules. > > > >>>> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing > > > >>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it > > > >>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' > > > >>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. > > > >>>> This patchset includes simple test for MSG_EOR. > > > >>> I'm prepared to merge this for this window, > > > >>> but I'm not sure who's supposed to ack the net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > > > >>> bits. It's a harmless variable renaming so maybe it does not matter. > > > >>> > > > >>> The rest is virtio stuff so I guess my tree is ok. > > > >>> > > > >>> Objections, anyone? > > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/3/76 this is v4. It is same as v5 in af_vsock.c changes. > > > >> > > > >> It has Reviewed by from Stefano Garzarella. > > > > Is Stefano the maintainer for af_vsock then? > > > > I wasn't sure. > > I'm maintaining virtio-vsock stuff, but I'm reviewing most of the af_vsock > patches. We don't have an entry for it in MAINTAINERS, maybe we should. Yea, please add that. And the test I guess? It's now Dave and while he's great as we all know, reducing the load on him is a good thing to do. > > > Ack, let's wait for maintainer's comment > > > > > > The specific patch is a trivial variable renaming so > > I parked this in my tree for now, will merge unless I > > hear any objections in the next couple of days. > > I agree, I think your tree is fine, since this series is mostly about > virtio-vsock. > > Thanks, > Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-06 8:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20210903123016.3272800-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
[not found] ` <20210903123238.3273526-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
2021-09-03 12:51 ` [PATCH net-next v5 3/6] vhost/vsock: support MSG_EOR bit processing Stefano Garzarella
2021-09-05 15:55 ` [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET Michael S. Tsirkin
[not found] ` <4558e96b-6330-667f-955b-b689986f884f@kaspersky.com>
2021-09-05 16:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
[not found] ` <5b20410a-fb8f-2e38-59d9-74dc6b8a9d4f@kaspersky.com>
2021-09-05 20:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-06 7:33 ` Stefano Garzarella
2021-09-06 8:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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).