On 4/22/25 20:47, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 4/22/25 19:30, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:19 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/22/25 14:56, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:43 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/18/25 00:15, Mina Almasry wrote:
Currently net_iovs support only pp ref counts, and do not support a
page ref equivalent.
Makes me wonder why it's needed. In theory, nobody should ever be
taking page references without going through struct ubuf_info
handling first, all in kernel users of these pages should always
be paired with ubuf_info, as it's user memory, it's not stable,
and without ubuf_info the user is allowed to overwrite it.
The concern about the stability of the from-userspace data is already
called out in the MSG_ZEROCOPY documentation that we're piggybacking
devmem TX onto:
Sure, I didn't object that. There is no problem as long as the
ubuf_info semantics is followed, which by extension mean that
any ref manipulation should already be gated on ubuf_info, and
there should be no need in changing generic paths.
I'm sorry I'm not following. skb_frag_ref is how the net stack obtains
references on an skb_frag, regardless on whether the frag is a
MSG_ZEROCOPY one with ubuf info, or a regular tx frag without a
ubuf_info, or even an io_uring frag which I think have the
Yep
msg->ubuf_info like we discussed previously. I don't see the net stack
in the current code special casing how it obtains refs on frags, and I
don't see the need to add special casing. Can you elaborate in more
You'll be special casing it either way, it's probably unavoidable,
just here it is in put/get_netmem.
detail what is the gating you expect, and why? Are you asking that I
check the skb has a ubuf_info before allowing to grab the reference on
the dmabuf binding? Or something else?
get_page() already shouldn't be a valid operation for ubuf backed frags
apart from few cases where frags are copied/moved together with ubuf.
The frags are essentially bundled with ubuf and shouldn't exist without
it, because otherwise user can overwrite memory with all the following
nastiness. If there are some spots violating that, I'd rather say they
should be addressed.
Instead of adding net_iov / devmem handling in generic paths affecting
everyone, you could change those functions where it's get_page() are
called legitimately. The niov/devmem part of get/put_netmem doesn't
even have the same semantics as the page counterparts as it cannot
prevent from reallocation. That might be fine, but it's not clear
Actually, maybe it's not that exclusive to netiov, same reallocation
argument is true for user pages, even though they're reffed
separately.
It might be fine to leave this approach, while suboptimal it should
be easier for you. Depends on how folks feel about the extra
overhead in the normal tx path.
--
Pavel Begunkov
