Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [MASSMAIL KLMS] Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/7]
 virtio/vsock: introduce MSG_EOR flag for SEQPACKET
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
CC:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@amazon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "oxffffaa@gmail.com" <oxffffaa@gmail.com>
References: <20210726163137.2589102-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210727075948.yl4w3foqa6rp4obg@steredhat>
 <2df68589-96b9-abd4-ad1c-e25918b908a9@kaspersky.com>
 <20210727095803.s26subp3pgclqzvi@steredhat>
From:   Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Message-ID: <2f2d580f-75b4-91c8-cbd5-ad15d7a7ec21@kaspersky.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:35:06 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210727095803.s26subp3pgclqzvi@steredhat>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-KSE-AttachmentFiltering-Interceptor-Info: no applicable attachment filtering
 rules found
X-KSE-Antivirus-Interceptor-Info: scan successful
X-KSE-Antivirus-Info: Clean, bases: 27.07.2021 11:26:00
X-KSE-BulkMessagesFiltering-Scan-Result: InTheLimit
X-KSE-AttachmentFiltering-Interceptor-Info: no applicable attachment filtering
 rules found
X-KSE-BulkMessagesFiltering-Scan-Result: InTheLimit
X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 52
X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned
X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, bases: 2021/07/27 10:45:00
X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.3.30, bases: 2021/07/27 11:28:00 #16963359
X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 27.07.2021 12:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:34:36PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>> On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>>>       This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
>>>> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
>>>>       Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
>>>> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
>>>> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
>>>> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
>>>> Current implementation based on message definition above.
>>>>       Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
>>>> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
>>>> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
>>>> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
>>>>       To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
>>>> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
>>>> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
>>>> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
>>> At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>> What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling,
>>> while the other does?
>>>
>>> I'll do a closer review in the next few days.
>> Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec
> Yep, sure!
>
> What do you think about the concerns above?
I think you are right, i'll rename EOR -> EOM, and EOR will be added by patch
>
> Stefano
>
>