Received: by 2002:a25:c593:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp368358ybe; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwI7e88ck+ZdfWBx/ypv8APsl+QCe6kG09oGjaHEekp7sFSfPZiouqXNIdYIYV+ynkj28Pd X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d886:: with SMTP id b6mr3931711plz.149.1567418396247; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1567418396; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=y35DtnVJ8r+VOWh+kuIRtlfjsbAMZLAJcTsfVDAw9NCIzmbHOdxxD/zO8ROc35nU2d XBz9Lvp1w53SgD8D+5CHWZm0w0Ka5Z6FqbY/OGmXZKYmFfagNYA+g1FCI0GHZLOIgCpy oj4RrN3bYXZiG9plvBOg7CXpPj33qbCyrXDnoI27XRvDjUoDgABrqsIBZuSGzXTdVsFu iex4giJiO0WSgV8rwiVCYWhE32UZKTzqVFMQU3FgGoFAXHE4Parn7hQR+VdAIbAO2jPg RQ3ZWCdwqbzM5P/CiP0cb/39b8tLdYHm+/QbZSRvxvVWIu5r25uJXjb5T4Sypxf6Tj9S En8w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=WDevdaBosm9IP59YXQ5PBEgCvGxheFOgazAH5VfCs4o=; b=UtqZNwVL1cP9/BRyLJXwM+VICv1ZCYVD/JtzseJ69EvdDd/8+FMarc/tB3qZV2/tpW t/mO+yKpvC4/E9MCAzG47Hte6Di7c8b5civqjo6p/S3AaTGqjNaOOKlISuImLKOrtWNY FLo2WZNjzPdLIeQHKoPLe7pwATF9IqpQJvWWnsuF1h1HR33JzDtxNDZhJzynh5W3VQ34 p5WrnlHaEtyvDO+/mBFiWjICdfemg6lybFIJbBb6t+/6Mb6ibJuiEEB8nAu2iKFGvNAR uQO/4nlBcgKDrP2LLfsoShz5M9/SA0NX3+Nicbzg5BL1Y1B6FGp57cy79TrXYZcoyotL SZCw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si11076803pgf.457.2019.09.02.02.59.40; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730858AbfIBJ5a (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 05:57:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45764 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730538AbfIBJ53 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 05:57:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1E21E30B for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a125so574936wmh.6 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=WDevdaBosm9IP59YXQ5PBEgCvGxheFOgazAH5VfCs4o=; b=fh+0cxSmfKMDYxT7lLBnraWgtAANRXnIys2QGM4QnLvCfHQK8Vd1nRn1+NGftovTnB 3ocvJRTsMfbX5Nl/jVSLGzklRN7p5u+I9LtDHK9Z836LHmkKYQ9Z6IZKv9lPwNHC7aUo PvuaCUcK9G4yhS2g0bnJ1oJ4DupEwBj1qprHkHZ/TkDhf1T6KMeo4FocAClwRwfBEkxp zuZ6iNhAG3a8lwI4tdtt4dINV/AZOD/Wftf1QYlmzka7tOn2xXRCarELKMMog/mN1K7q jJ5nHbNiwf1msV28QxgxAFCs5rNrBw7eR0QEruUMQZXpPvMXBec7kR3IeEGeOQNLIGye jHpA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWeStlCQHusUyl1Xobi4xC/7Ij7UCqBYl8yfMJzK3C4R8TZfbp /H1Tf53ku70urmufPvmOO0D+yxKkLxh6A6OLcqJCg6bXI6RmiX14YiGcnkQ2OqSHA4JLRT1S/Za vvf4XvfY008hVUK7zngIgjigO X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d142:: with SMTP id i63mr21191926wmg.53.1567418247010; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:57:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d142:: with SMTP id i63mr21191907wmg.53.1567418246729; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from steredhat (host170-61-dynamic.36-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.36.61.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm18252458wro.34.2019.09.02.02.57.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:57:23 +0200 From: Stefano Garzarella To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "David S. Miller" , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Wang , kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] vsock/virtio: limit the memory used per-socket Message-ID: <20190902095723.6vuvp73fdunmiogo@steredhat> References: <20190729161903.yhaj5rfcvleexkhc@steredhat> <20190729165056.r32uzj6om3o6vfvp@steredhat> <20190729143622-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190730093539.dcksure3vrykir3g@steredhat> <20190730163807-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190801104754.lb3ju5xjfmnxioii@steredhat> <20190801091106-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190801133616.sik5drn6ecesukbb@steredhat> <20190901025815-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190901061707-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190901061707-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 06:17:58AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 04:26:19AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:36:16PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 09:21:15AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:47:54PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:42:25PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:35:39AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem here is the compatibility. Before this series virtio-vsock > > > > > > > and vhost-vsock modules had the RX buffer size hard-coded > > > > > > > (VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE = 4K). So, if we send a buffer smaller > > > > > > > of 4K, there might be issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't be if they are following the spec. If not let's fix > > > > > > the broken parts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it is the time to add add 'features' to virtio-vsock device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Stefano > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would a remote care about buffer sizes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's first see what the issues are. If they exist > > > > > > we can either fix the bugs, or code the bug as a feature in spec. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vhost_transport '.stream_enqueue' callback > > > > > [virtio_transport_stream_enqueue()] calls the virtio_transport_send_pkt_info(), > > > > > passing the user message. This function allocates a new packet, copying > > > > > the user message, but (before this series) it limits the packet size to > > > > > the VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE (4K): > > > > > > > > > > static int virtio_transport_send_pkt_info(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > > > > > struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *info) > > > > > { > > > > > ... > > > > > /* we can send less than pkt_len bytes */ > > > > > if (pkt_len > VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE) > > > > > pkt_len = VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE; > > > > > > > > > > /* virtio_transport_get_credit might return less than pkt_len credit */ > > > > > pkt_len = virtio_transport_get_credit(vvs, pkt_len); > > > > > > > > > > /* Do not send zero length OP_RW pkt */ > > > > > if (pkt_len == 0 && info->op == VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW) > > > > > return pkt_len; > > > > > ... > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > then it queues the packet for the TX worker calling .send_pkt() > > > > > [vhost_transport_send_pkt() in the vhost_transport case] > > > > > > > > > > The main function executed by the TX worker is > > > > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt() that picks up a buffer from the virtqueue > > > > > and it tries to copy the packet (up to 4K) on it. If the buffer > > > > > allocated from the guest will be smaller then 4K, I think here it will > > > > > be discarded with an error: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm adding more lines to explain better. > > > > > > > > static void > > > > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock, > > > > > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > > > > > { > > > ... > > > > > > head = vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov, ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov), > > > &out, &in, NULL, NULL); > > > > > > ... > > > > > > len = iov_length(&vq->iov[out], in); > > > iov_iter_init(&iov_iter, READ, &vq->iov[out], in, len); > > > > > > nbytes = copy_to_iter(&pkt->hdr, sizeof(pkt->hdr), &iov_iter); > > > if (nbytes != sizeof(pkt->hdr)) { > > > virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt); > > > vq_err(vq, "Faulted on copying pkt hdr\n"); > > > break; > > > } > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > nbytes = copy_to_iter(pkt->buf, pkt->len, &iov_iter); > > > > > > > > isn't pck len the actual length though? > > > > > > > > > > It is the length of the packet that we are copying in the guest RX > > > buffers pointed by the iov_iter. The guest allocates an iovec with 2 > > > buffers, one for the header and one for the payload (4KB). > > > > BTW at the moment that forces another kmalloc within virtio core. Maybe > > vsock needs a flag to skip allocation in this case. Worth benchmarking. > > See virtqueue_use_indirect which just does total_sg > 1. Okay, I'll take a look at virtqueue_use_indirect and I'll do some benchmarking. > > > > > > > > > > if (nbytes != pkt->len) { > > > > > virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt); > > > > > vq_err(vq, "Faulted on copying pkt buf\n"); > > > > > break; > > > > > } > > > > > ... > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series changes this behavior since now we will split the packet in > > > > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt() depending on the buffer found in the > > > > > virtqueue. > > > > > > > > > > We didn't change the buffer size in this series, so we still backward > > > > > compatible, but if we will use buffers smaller than 4K, we should > > > > > encounter the error described above. > > > > So that's an implementation bug then? It made an assumption > > of a 4K sized buffer? Or even PAGE_SIZE sized buffer? Yes, I think it made an assumption and it used this macro as a limit: include/linux/virtio_vsock.h:13: #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 4) > > Assuming we miss nothing and buffers < 4K are broken, > I think we need to add this to the spec, possibly with > a feature bit to relax the requirement that all buffers > are at least 4k in size. > Okay, should I send a proposal to virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org? Thanks, Stefano