Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:03:00 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, imagedong@tencent.com,
        joao.m.martins@oracle.com, joe.jin@oracle.com, dsahern@gmail.com,
        edumazet@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] net: tap: track dropped skb via
 kfree_skb_reason()
Message-ID: <20220302110300.1ac78804@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <0556b706-cb4d-b0b6-ef29-443123afd71d@oracle.com>
References: <20220226084929.6417-1-dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
        <20220226084929.6417-3-dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
        <20220301184209.1f11b350@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
        <0556b706-cb4d-b0b6-ef29-443123afd71d@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 09:43:29 -0800 Dongli Zhang wrote:
> On 3/1/22 6:42 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 00:49:27 -0800 Dongli Zhang wrote:  
> >> +	SKB_DROP_REASON_SKB_CSUM,	/* sk_buff checksum error */  
> > 
> > Can we spell it out a little more? It sounds like the checksum was
> > incorrect. Will it be clear that computing the checksum failed, rather
> > than checksum validation failed?  
> 
> I am just trying to make the reasons as generic as possible so that:
> 
> 1. We may minimize the number of reasons.
> 
> 2. People may re-use the same reason for all CSUM related issue.

The generic nature is fine, my concern is to clearly differentiate
errors in _validating_ the checksum from errors in _generating_ them.
"sk_buff checksum error" does not explain which one had taken place.

> >> +	SKB_DROP_REASON_SKB_COPY_DATA,	/* failed to copy data from or to
> >> +					 * sk_buff
> >> +					 */  
> > 
> > Here should we specify that it's copying from user space?  
> 
> Same as above. I am minimizing the number of reasons so that any memory copy for
> sk_buff may re-use this reason.

IIUC this failure is equivalent to user passing an invalid buffer. 
I mean something like:

	send(fd, (void *)random(), 1000, 0);

I'd be tempted to call the reason something link SKB_UCOPY_FAULT.
To indicate it's a problem copying from user space. EFAULT is the
typical errno for that. WDYT?