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:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 21:22:17 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To:     Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com>
Cc:     Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net] sctp: count singleton chunks in assoc user stats
Message-ID: <YkZFuWQOEh5webSr@t14s.localdomain>
References: <0dfee8c9d17c20f9a87c39dbc57f635d998b08d2.1648609552.git.jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com>
 <YkSzLJ72M5f5EL2L@t14s.localdomain>
 <CAAvyFNgL1_YsnkGdJM8t9L1zT60AEfUMeReVx=2DTtLZ_WLScQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAvyFNgL1_YsnkGdJM8t9L1zT60AEfUMeReVx=2DTtLZ_WLScQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:09:56AM +1000, Jamie Bainbridge wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 05:44, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 01:06:02PM +1000, Jamie Bainbridge wrote:
> > > Singleton chunks (INIT, HEARTBEAT PMTU probes, and SHUTDOWN-
> > > COMPLETE) are not counted in SCTP_GET_ASOC_STATS "sas_octrlchunks"
> > > counter available to the assoc owner.
> > >
> > > These are all control chunks so they should be counted as such.
> > >
> > > Add counting of singleton chunks so they are properly accounted for.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 196d67593439 ("sctp: Add support to per-association statistics via a new SCTP_GET_ASSOC_STATS call")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  net/sctp/outqueue.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sctp/outqueue.c b/net/sctp/outqueue.c
> > > index a18609f608fb786b2532a4febbd72a9737ab906c..bed34918b41f24810677adc0cd4fbd0859396a02 100644
> > > --- a/net/sctp/outqueue.c
> > > +++ b/net/sctp/outqueue.c
> > > @@ -914,6 +914,7 @@ static void sctp_outq_flush_ctrl(struct sctp_flush_ctx *ctx)
> > >                               ctx->asoc->base.sk->sk_err = -error;
> > >                               return;
> > >                       }
> > > +                     ctx->asoc->stats.octrlchunks++;
> > >                       break;
> > >
> > >               case SCTP_CID_ABORT:
> > > @@ -939,6 +940,7 @@ static void sctp_outq_flush_ctrl(struct sctp_flush_ctx *ctx)
> > >               case SCTP_CID_HEARTBEAT:
> > >                       if (chunk->pmtu_probe) {
> > >                               sctp_packet_singleton(ctx->transport, chunk, ctx->gfp);
> > > +                             ctx->asoc->stats.octrlchunks++;
> >
> > sctp_packet_singleton can fail. It shouldn't be propagated to the
> > socket but octrlchunks shouldn't be incremented then. Not too diferent
> > from the one above.
> 
> Ah, thanks for the catch! Is this syntax assigning to error okay?
> 
> error = sctp_packet_singleton(ctx->transport, chunk, ctx->gfp);
> if (!error)
>           ctx->asoc->stats.octrlchunks++;
> break;

Yes. :-)

> 
> > >                               break;
> > >                       }
> > >                       fallthrough;
> > > --
> > > 2.35.1
> > >