tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY

Message ID 20180906135459.15529-1-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com
State Accepted
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show
Series
  • tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY
Related show

Commit Message

Vincent Whitchurch Sept. 6, 2018, 1:54 p.m.
According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.

Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
purpose.  Fix it.

Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
---
 net/core/skbuff.c | 3 ---
 net/ipv4/tcp.c    | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Willem de Bruijn Sept. 6, 2018, 7:44 p.m. | #1
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:58 AM Vincent Whitchurch
<vincent.whitchurch@axis.com> wrote:
>
> According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
> flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
> any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
> MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.
>
> Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
> which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
> would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
> it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
> purpose.  Fix it.
>
> Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>

Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>

Good catch, thanks for fixing this.

Please remember to mark patches with PATCH net
David Miller Sept. 8, 2018, 6:11 a.m. | #2
From: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Date: Thu,  6 Sep 2018 15:54:59 +0200

> According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
> flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
> any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
> MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.
> 
> Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
> which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
> would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
> it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
> purpose.  Fix it.
> 
> Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>

Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.

Patch

diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index c996c09d095f..b2c807f67aba 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -939,9 +939,6 @@  struct ubuf_info *sock_zerocopy_alloc(struct sock *sk, size_t size)
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task());
 
-	if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY))
-		return NULL;
-
 	skb = sock_omalloc(sk, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!skb)
 		return NULL;
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index b8af2fec5ad5..10c6246396cc 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -1185,7 +1185,7 @@  int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
 
 	flags = msg->msg_flags;
 
-	if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && size) {
+	if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && size && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
 		if (sk->sk_state != TCP_ESTABLISHED) {
 			err = -EINVAL;
 			goto out_err;