On 2020/12/4 下午6:22, wangyunjian wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:11 PM
To: wangyunjian <wangyunj...@huawei.com>; m...@redhat.com
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; Lilijun
(Jerry) <jerry.lili...@huawei.com>; xudingke <xudin...@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tun: fix ubuf refcount incorrectly on error path


On 2020/12/3 下午4:00, wangyunjian wrote:
From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>

After setting callback for ubuf_info of skb, the callback
(vhost_net_zerocopy_callback) will be called to decrease the refcount
when freeing skb. But when an exception occurs afterwards, the error
handling in vhost handle_tx() will try to decrease the same refcount
again. This is wrong and fix this by clearing ubuf_info when meeting
errors.

Fixes: 4477138fa0ae ("tun: properly test for IFF_UP")
Fixes: 90e33d459407 ("tun: enable napi_gro_frags() for TUN/TAP
driver")

Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
---
   drivers/net/tun.c | 11 +++++++++++
   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c index
2dc1988a8973..3614bb1b6d35 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -1861,6 +1861,12 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct
*tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
        if (unlikely(!(tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP))) {
                err = -EIO;
                rcu_read_unlock();
+               if (zerocopy) {
+                       skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg = NULL;
+                       skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &= ~SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY;
+                       skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &= ~SKBTX_SHARED_FRAG;
+               }
+
                goto drop;
        }

@@ -1874,6 +1880,11 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct
*tun, struct tun_file *tfile,

                if (unlikely(headlen > skb_headlen(skb))) {
                        atomic_long_inc(&tun->dev->rx_dropped);
+                       if (zerocopy) {
+                               skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg = NULL;
+                               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &= 
~SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY;
+                               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags &= ~SKBTX_SHARED_FRAG;
+                       }
                        napi_free_frags(&tfile->napi);
                        rcu_read_unlock();
                        mutex_unlock(&tfile->napi_mutex);

It looks to me then we miss the failure feedback.

The issues comes from the inconsistent error handling in tun.

I wonder whether we can simply do uarg->callback(uarg, false) if necessary on
every failture path on tun_get_user().
How about this?

---
  drivers/net/tun.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
index 2dc1988a8973..36a8d8eacd7b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -1637,6 +1637,19 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct 
*tun,
        return NULL;
  }
+/* copy ubuf_info for callback when skb has no error */
+inline static tun_copy_ubuf_info(struct sk_buff *skb, bool zerocopy, void 
*msg_control)
+{
+       if (zerocopy) {
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg = msg_control;
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY;
+               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_SHARED_FRAG;
+       } else if (msg_control) {
+               struct ubuf_info *uarg = msg_control;
+               uarg->callback(uarg, false);
+       }
+}
+
  /* Get packet from user space buffer */
  static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile,
                            void *msg_control, struct iov_iter *from,
@@ -1812,16 +1825,6 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, 
struct tun_file *tfile,
                break;
        }
- /* copy skb_ubuf_info for callback when skb has no error */
-       if (zerocopy) {
-               skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg = msg_control;
-               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY;
-               skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_SHARED_FRAG;
-       } else if (msg_control) {
-               struct ubuf_info *uarg = msg_control;
-               uarg->callback(uarg, false);
-       }
-
        skb_reset_network_header(skb);
        skb_probe_transport_header(skb);
        skb_record_rx_queue(skb, tfile->queue_index);
@@ -1830,6 +1833,7 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, 
struct tun_file *tfile,
                struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog;
                int ret;
+ tun_copy_ubuf_info(skb, zerocopy, msg_control);


If you think disabling zerocopy for XDP (which I think it makes sense). It's better to do this in another patch.


                local_bh_disable();
                rcu_read_lock();
                xdp_prog = rcu_dereference(tun->xdp_prog);
@@ -1880,7 +1884,7 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, 
struct tun_file *tfile,
                        WARN_ON(1);
                        return -ENOMEM;
                }
-
+               tun_copy_ubuf_info(skb, zerocopy, msg_control);


And for NAPI frags.


                local_bh_disable();
                napi_gro_frags(&tfile->napi);
                local_bh_enable();
@@ -1889,6 +1893,7 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, 
struct tun_file *tfile,
                struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue;
                int queue_len;
+ tun_copy_ubuf_info(skb, zerocopy, msg_control);
                spin_lock_bh(&queue->lock);
                __skb_queue_tail(queue, skb);
                queue_len = skb_queue_len(queue);
@@ -1899,8 +1904,10 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, 
struct tun_file *tfile,
local_bh_enable();
        } else if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_4KSTACKS)) {
+               tun_copy_ubuf_info(skb, zerocopy, msg_control);
                tun_rx_batched(tun, tfile, skb, more);
        } else {
+               tun_copy_ubuf_info(skb, zerocopy, msg_control);
                netif_rx_ni(skb);
        }
        rcu_read_unlock();


So it looks to me you want to disable zerocopy in all of the possible datapath?

Thanks

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to