On 05/19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Preserve the error code returned by sock_cmsg_send and return that on
> err.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrym...@google.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/tcp.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> index b7b6ab41b496..45abe5772157 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@ -1067,7 +1067,7 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>       int flags, err, copied = 0;
>       int mss_now = 0, size_goal, copied_syn = 0;
>       int process_backlog = 0;
> -     bool sockc_valid = true;
> +     int sockc_err = 0;
>       int zc = 0;
>       long timeo;
>  
> @@ -1075,13 +1075,10 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>  
>       sockc = (struct sockcm_cookie){ .tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags) };
>       if (msg->msg_controllen) {
> -             err = sock_cmsg_send(sk, msg, &sockc);
> -             if (unlikely(err))
> -                     /* Don't return error until MSG_FASTOPEN has been
> -                      * processed; that may succeed even if the cmsg is
> -                      * invalid.
> -                      */
> -                     sockc_valid = false;
> +             sockc_err = sock_cmsg_send(sk, msg, &sockc);
> +             /* Don't return error until MSG_FASTOPEN has been processed;
> +              * that may succeed even if the cmsg is invalid.
> +              */
>       }
>  
>       if ((flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY) && size) {
> @@ -1092,7 +1089,7 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>               } else if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
>                       skb = tcp_write_queue_tail(sk);
>                       uarg = msg_zerocopy_realloc(sk, size, skb_zcopy(skb),
> -                                                 sockc_valid && 
> !!sockc.dmabuf_id);
> +                                                 !sockc_err && 
> !!sockc.dmabuf_id);

Why have these extra !! here? Other places below simply do '&& sockc.dmabuf_id',
why not the same here? 

>                       if (!uarg) {
>                               err = -ENOBUFS;
>                               goto out_err;
> @@ -1102,7 +1099,7 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>                       else
>                               uarg_to_msgzc(uarg)->zerocopy = 0;
>  
> -                     if (sockc_valid && sockc.dmabuf_id) {
> +                     if (!sockc_err && sockc.dmabuf_id) {
>                               binding = net_devmem_get_binding(sk, 
> sockc.dmabuf_id);
>                               if (IS_ERR(binding)) {
>                                       err = PTR_ERR(binding);
> @@ -1116,7 +1113,7 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>                       zc = MSG_SPLICE_PAGES;
>       }
>  
> -     if (sockc_valid && sockc.dmabuf_id &&
> +     if (!sockc_err && sockc.dmabuf_id &&
>           (!(flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY) || !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY))) {
>               err = -EINVAL;
>               goto out_err;
> @@ -1160,9 +1157,8 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
> *msg, size_t size)
>               /* 'common' sending to sendq */
>       }
>  
> -     if (!sockc_valid) {
> -             if (!err)
> -                     err = -EINVAL;
> +     if (!!sockc_err) {

Same here, I don't think we need these extra !! ?

Reply via email to