lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] vhost: fix skb leak in handle_rx()
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:11:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年12月01日 13:54, wexu@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Wei Xu <wexu@redhat.com>
> >
> > Matthew found a roughly 40% tcp throughput regression with commit
> > c67df11f(vhost_net: try batch dequing from skb array) as discussed
> > in the following thread:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg187936.html
> >
> > Eventually we figured out that it was a skb leak in handle_rx()
> > when sending packets to the VM. This usually happens when a guest
> > can not drain out vq as fast as vhost fills in, afterwards it sets
> > off the traffic jam and leaks skb(s) which occurs as no headcount
> > to send on the vq from vhost side.
> >
> > This can be avoided by making sure we have got enough headcount
> > before actually consuming a skb from the batched rx array while
> > transmitting, which is simply done by moving checking the zero
> > headcount a bit ahead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Xu <wexu@redhat.com>
> > Reported-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/vhost/net.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > index 8d626d7..c7bdeb6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > @@ -778,16 +778,6 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > /* On error, stop handling until the next kick. */
> > if (unlikely(headcount < 0))
> > goto out;
> > - if (nvq->rx_array)
> > - msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
> > - /* On overrun, truncate and discard */
> > - if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
> > - iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
> > - err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
> > - 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
> > - pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > /* OK, now we need to know about added descriptors. */
> > if (!headcount) {
> > if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
> > @@ -800,6 +790,16 @@ static void handle_rx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > * they refilled. */
> > goto out;
> > }
> > + if (nvq->rx_array)
> > + msg.msg_control = vhost_net_buf_consume(&nvq->rxq);
> > + /* On overrun, truncate and discard */
> > + if (unlikely(headcount > UIO_MAXIOV)) {
> > + iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, 1, 1);
> > + err = sock->ops->recvmsg(sock, &msg,
> > + 1, MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_TRUNC);
> > + pr_debug("Discarded rx packet: len %zd\n", sock_len);
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > /* We don't need to be notified again. */
> > iov_iter_init(&msg.msg_iter, READ, vq->iov, in, vhost_len);
> > fixup = msg.msg_iter;
>
> I suggest to reorder this patch to 3/3.
>
> Thanks

Why? This doesn't cause any new leaks, does it?

--
MST

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-01 15:38    [W:0.186 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site