Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:59:18 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        dccp@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org, linux-x25@vger.kernel.org,
        mptcp@lists.linux.dev, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com,
        tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Message-ID: <6491a2a6f1488_3bcfec294d7@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <784658.1687176327@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <648f36d02fe6e_33cfbc2944f@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
 <20230617121146.716077-1-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <20230617121146.716077-18-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <784658.1687176327@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 17/17] net: Kill MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

David Howells wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Is it intentional to add MSG_MORE here in this patch?
> > 
> > I do see that patch 3 removes this branch:
> 
> Yeah.  I think I may have tcp_bpf a bit wrong with regard to handling
> MSG_MORE.
> 
> How about the attached version of tcp_bpf_push()?
> 
> I wonder if it's save to move the setting of MSG_SENDPAGE_NOPOLICY out of the
> loop as I've done here.  The caller holds the socket lock.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure whether to take account of apply/apply_bytes when setting
> MSG_MORE mid-message, or whether to just go on whether we've reached
> sge->length yet.  (I'm not sure exactly how tcp_bpf works).

I'm not very familiar with it either.

Instead of inferring whether MSG_MORE is safe to set, as below, sufficient to
rely on the caller to pass it when appropriate?

size = min(apply_bytes, sge->length). I doubt that size < apply_bytes is
ever intended.

And instead of this former branch

                if (flags & MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST)
                        msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;

update any caller to pass MSG_MORE instead of MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST, if not yet
done so.

> 		msghdr.msg_flags = flags;
> 
> 		/* Determine if we need to set MSG_MORE. */
> 		if (!(msghdr.msg_flags & MSG_MORE)) {
> 			if (apply && size < apply_bytes)
> 				msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;
> 			else if (!apply && size < sge->length &&
> 				 msg->sg.start != msg->sg.end)
> 				msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;
> 		}