| Message ID | 20150824185637.GA19923@salvia |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:56:37 +0200 > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:08:22AM +0200, Christophe Ricard wrote: >> Hi Scott, >> >> I think i understand the potential limitation of my solution. >> I saw something was proposed by Jiri Benc who pushed an additional flag to >> tell if the payload can be ignored in case of an error. >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/290976/ >> >> Do you think this one is acceptable ? I am not sure to understand David >> last comment. > > I think David suggests something like the (completely untested) > attached patch. Yes, echo'ing the entire message back in an ACK is really pointless. Especially since if the user really is interested in noticing ACKs it can very easily keep the original request around and match on sequence number, as Pablo's patch's commit message suggests. We're stuck with the current behavior by default, but we can add the new ACK feature to deal with the issue in the long term. -- 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
Hi David, Pablo, I gave try to your proposed patch. Changes in netlink_getsockopt and netlink_setsockopt are working fine. Changes in netlink_ack looks not to be addressing the correct socket. I will send an updated version in few minutes. Best Regards Christophe On 25/08/2015 06:19, David Miller wrote: > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> > Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:56:37 +0200 > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:08:22AM +0200, Christophe Ricard wrote: >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> I think i understand the potential limitation of my solution. >>> I saw something was proposed by Jiri Benc who pushed an additional flag to >>> tell if the payload can be ignored in case of an error. >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/290976/ >>> >>> Do you think this one is acceptable ? I am not sure to understand David >>> last comment. >> I think David suggests something like the (completely untested) >> attached patch. > Yes, echo'ing the entire message back in an ACK is really pointless. > > Especially since if the user really is interested in noticing ACKs > it can very easily keep the original request around and match on > sequence number, as Pablo's patch's commit message suggests. > > We're stuck with the current behavior by default, but we can add the > new ACK feature to deal with the issue in the long term. -- 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
From 3aa0deafb5648427d154e26920d9d85f89dab190 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:23:45 +0200
Subject: [PATCH RFC] netlink: add NETLINK_CAP_ACK socket option
Since commit c05cdb1b864f ("netlink: allow large data transfers from
user-space"), the kernel may fail to allocate the necessary room for the
acknowledgement message back to userspace. This patch introduces a new socket
option that trims off the payload of the original netlink message.
The netlink message header is still included, so the user can guess from the
sequence number what is the message that has triggered the acknowledgment.
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
---
include/uapi/linux/netlink.h | 1 +
net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
index cf6a65c..6f3fe16 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ struct nlmsgerr {
#define NETLINK_TX_RING 7
#define NETLINK_LISTEN_ALL_NSID 8
#define NETLINK_LIST_MEMBERSHIPS 9
+#define NETLINK_CAP_ACK 10
struct nl_pktinfo {
__u32 group;
diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
index 67d2104..baa5973 100644
--- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
+++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct listeners {
#define NETLINK_F_BROADCAST_SEND_ERROR 0x4
#define NETLINK_F_RECV_NO_ENOBUFS 0x8
#define NETLINK_F_LISTEN_ALL_NSID 0x10
+#define NETLINK_F_CAP_ACK 0x20
static inline int netlink_is_kernel(struct sock *sk)
{
@@ -2258,6 +2259,13 @@ static int netlink_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
nlk->flags &= ~NETLINK_F_LISTEN_ALL_NSID;
err = 0;
break;
+ case NETLINK_CAP_ACK:
+ if (val)
+ nlk->flags |= NETLINK_F_CAP_ACK;
+ else
+ nlk->flags &= ~NETLINK_F_CAP_ACK;
+ err = 0;
+ break;
default:
err = -ENOPROTOOPT;
}
@@ -2332,6 +2340,16 @@ static int netlink_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
netlink_table_ungrab();
break;
}
+ case NETLINK_CAP_ACK:
+ if (len < sizeof(int))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ len = sizeof(int);
+ val = nlk->flags & NETLINK_F_CAP_ACK ? 1 : 0;
+ if (put_user(len, optlen) ||
+ put_user(val, optval))
+ return -EFAULT;
+ err = 0;
+ break;
default:
err = -ENOPROTOOPT;
}
@@ -2869,13 +2887,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__netlink_dump_start);
void netlink_ack(struct sk_buff *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, int err)
{
+ struct netlink_sock *nlk = nlk_sk(in_skb->sk);
struct sk_buff *skb;
struct nlmsghdr *rep;
struct nlmsgerr *errmsg;
size_t payload = sizeof(*errmsg);
- /* error messages get the original request appened */
- if (err)
+ /* Error messages get the original request appended, unless the user
+ * requests to cap the error message.
+ */
+ if (!(nlk->flags & NETLINK_F_CAP_ACK) && err)
payload += nlmsg_len(nlh);
skb = netlink_alloc_skb(in_skb->sk, nlmsg_total_size(payload),
--
1.7.10.4