Patchwork tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Eric Dumazet
Date Jan. 9, 2009, 10:02 p.m.
Message ID <4967C95E.3070602@cosmosbay.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/17613/
State RFC
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Comments

Eric Dumazet - Jan. 9, 2009, 10:02 p.m.
Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:51:17PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> (...)
>>> Also, in your second mail, you're saying that your change
>>> might return more data than requested by the user. I can't
>>> find why, could you please explain to me, as I'm still quite
>>> ignorant in this area ?
>> Well, I just tested various user programs and indeed got this
>> strange result :
>>
>> Here I call splice() with len=1000 (0x3e8), and you can see
>> it gives a result of 1460 at the second call.
> 
> huh, not nice indeed!
> 
> While looking at the code to see how this could be possible, I
> came across this minor thing (unrelated IMHO) :
> 
> 	if (__skb_splice_bits(skb, &offset, &tlen, &spd))
> 		goto done;
>>>>>>> 	else if (!tlen)    <<<<<<
> 		goto done;
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * now see if we have a frag_list to map
> 	 */
> 	if (skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list) {
> 		struct sk_buff *list = skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list;
> 
> 		for (; list && tlen; list = list->next) {
> 			if (__skb_splice_bits(list, &offset, &tlen, &spd))
> 				break;
> 		}
> 	}
> 
>     done:
> 
> Above on the enlighted line, we'd better remove the else and leave a plain
> "if (!tlen)". Otherwise, when the first call to __skb_splice_bits() zeroes
> tlen, we still enter the if and evaluate the for condition for nothing. But
> let's leave that for later.
> 
>> I suspect a bug in splice code, that my patch just exposed.
> 
> I've checked in skb_splice_bits() and below and can't see how we can move
> more than the requested len.
> 
> However, with your change, I don't clearly see how we break out of
> the loop in tcp_read_sock(). Maybe we first read 1000 then loop again
> and read remaining data ? I suspect that we should at least exit when
> ((struct tcp_splice_state *)desc->arg.data)->len = 0.
> 
> At least that's something easy to add just before or after !desc->count
> for a test.
> 

I believe the bug is in tcp_splice_data_recv()

I am going to test a new patch, but here is the thing I found:



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
willy tarreau - Jan. 9, 2009, 10:09 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 11:02:06PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:51:17PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > (...)
> >>> Also, in your second mail, you're saying that your change
> >>> might return more data than requested by the user. I can't
> >>> find why, could you please explain to me, as I'm still quite
> >>> ignorant in this area ?
> >> Well, I just tested various user programs and indeed got this
> >> strange result :
> >>
> >> Here I call splice() with len=1000 (0x3e8), and you can see
> >> it gives a result of 1460 at the second call.
> > 
> > huh, not nice indeed!
> > 
> > While looking at the code to see how this could be possible, I
> > came across this minor thing (unrelated IMHO) :
> > 
> > 	if (__skb_splice_bits(skb, &offset, &tlen, &spd))
> > 		goto done;
> >>>>>>> 	else if (!tlen)    <<<<<<
> > 		goto done;
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * now see if we have a frag_list to map
> > 	 */
> > 	if (skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list) {
> > 		struct sk_buff *list = skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list;
> > 
> > 		for (; list && tlen; list = list->next) {
> > 			if (__skb_splice_bits(list, &offset, &tlen, &spd))
> > 				break;
> > 		}
> > 	}
> > 
> >     done:
> > 
> > Above on the enlighted line, we'd better remove the else and leave a plain
> > "if (!tlen)". Otherwise, when the first call to __skb_splice_bits() zeroes
> > tlen, we still enter the if and evaluate the for condition for nothing. But
> > let's leave that for later.
> > 
> >> I suspect a bug in splice code, that my patch just exposed.
> > 
> > I've checked in skb_splice_bits() and below and can't see how we can move
> > more than the requested len.
> > 
> > However, with your change, I don't clearly see how we break out of
> > the loop in tcp_read_sock(). Maybe we first read 1000 then loop again
> > and read remaining data ? I suspect that we should at least exit when
> > ((struct tcp_splice_state *)desc->arg.data)->len = 0.
> > 
> > At least that's something easy to add just before or after !desc->count
> > for a test.
> > 
> 
> I believe the bug is in tcp_splice_data_recv()

yes, see my other mail.

> I am going to test a new patch, but here is the thing I found:
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> index bd6ff90..fbbddf4 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int tcp_splice_data_recv(read_descriptor_t *rd_desc, struct sk_buff *skb,
>  {
>         struct tcp_splice_state *tss = rd_desc->arg.data;
> 
> -       return skb_splice_bits(skb, offset, tss->pipe, tss->len, tss->flags);
> +       return skb_splice_bits(skb, offset, tss->pipe, len, tss->flags);
>  }

it will not work, len is always 1000 in your case, for every call,
as I had in my logs :

kernel :

tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3480 offset=0 len=1460 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages
tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3480 offset=1000 len=460 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3540 offset=0 len=1460 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages
tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3540 offset=1000 len=460 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3600 offset=0 len=1176 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages
tcp_splice_data_recv: skb=ed3d3600 offset=1000 len=176 tss->pipe=ed1cbc00 tss->len=1000 tss->flags=3
tcp_sendpage: going through do_tcp_sendpages

program :

accept(3, 0, NULL)                      = 4
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 5
connect(5, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(4001), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.0.3.1")}, 16) = 0
fcntl64(4, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
fcntl64(5, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
pipe([6, 7])                            = 0
select(6, [5], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [5])
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1460
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x5b4, 0x3)      = 1460
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1460
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x5b4, 0x3)      = 1460
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 176
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0xb0, 0x3)       = 176
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
close(5)                                = 0
close(4)                                = 0
exit_group(0)                           = ?


Now with the fix :

accept(3, 0, NULL)                      = 4
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 5
connect(5, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(4001), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.0.3.1")}, 16) = 0
fcntl64(4, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
fcntl64(5, F_SETFL, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
pipe([6, 7])                            = 0
select(6, [5], [], NULL, NULL)          = 1 (in [5])
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 1000
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = 96
select(6, [5], [4], NULL, NULL)         = 2 (in [5], out [4])
splice(0x6, 0, 0x4, 0, 0x60, 0x3)       = 96
splice(0x5, 0, 0x7, 0, 0x3e8, 0x3)      = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
close(5)                                = 0
close(4)                                = 0
exit_group(0)                           = ?


Regards,
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index bd6ff90..fbbddf4 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@  static int tcp_splice_data_recv(read_descriptor_t *rd_desc, struct sk_buff *skb,
 {
        struct tcp_splice_state *tss = rd_desc->arg.data;

-       return skb_splice_bits(skb, offset, tss->pipe, tss->len, tss->flags);
+       return skb_splice_bits(skb, offset, tss->pipe, len, tss->flags);
 }

 static int __tcp_splice_read(struct sock *sk, struct tcp_splice_state *tss)