lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net] tuntap: raise EPOLLOUT on device up
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:22:11AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年05月22日 06:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:47:42AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 21:00:43 +0800
> > >
> > > > We return -EIO on device down but can not raise EPOLLOUT after it was
> > > > up. This may confuse user like vhost which expects tuntap to raise
> > > > EPOLLOUT to re-enable its TX routine after tuntap is down. This could
> > > > be easily reproduced by transmitting packets from VM while down and up
> > > > the tap device. Fixing this by set SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE on -EIO.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
> > > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > > > Fixes: 1bd4978a88ac2 ("tun: honor IFF_UP in tun_get_user()")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > I'm no so sure what to do with this patch.
> > >
> > > Like Michael says, this flag bit is only checks upon transmit which
> > > may or may not happen after this point. It doesn't seem to be
> > > guaranteed.
>
> The flag is checked in tun_chr_poll() as well.
>
> > Jason, can't we detect a link up transition and respond accordingly?
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> I think we've already tried to do this, in tun_net_open() we call
> write_space(). But the problem is the bit may not be set at that time.
>
> A second thought is to set the bit in tun_chr_poll() instead of -EIO like:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index d45ac37..46a1573 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -1423,6 +1423,13 @@ static void tun_net_init(struct net_device *dev)
>         dev->max_mtu = MAX_MTU - dev->hard_header_len;
>  }
>
> +static bool tun_sock_writeable(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file
> *tfile)
> +{
> +       struct sock *sk = tfile->socket.sk;
> +
> +       return (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP) && sock_writeable(sk);
> +}
> +
>  /* Character device part */
>
>  /* Poll */
> @@ -1445,10 +1452,9 @@ static __poll_t tun_chr_poll(struct file *file,
> poll_table *wait)
>         if (!ptr_ring_empty(&tfile->tx_ring))
>                 mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>
> -       if (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
> -           (sock_writeable(sk) ||
> -            (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags)
> &&
> -             sock_writeable(sk))))
> +       if (tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile) ||
> +           (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags)
> &&
> +            tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile)));
>                 mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
>
>         if (tun->dev->reg_state != NETREG_REGISTERED)
>
> Does this make more sense?
>
> Thanks

I just understood the motivation for doing it on EIO.
Maybe there's a reason it makes sense here as well,
but it's far from obvious. I suggest you repost adding
an explanation in the comment. The original patch will
be fine with an explanation as well.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-22 05:47    [W:0.043 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site