lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] net/9p: fix response size check in p9_check_errors()
Date
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:21:43 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:04:08AM +0100:
> > Since 60ece0833b6c (net/9p: allocate appropriate reduced message buffers)
> > it is no longer appropriate to check server's response size against
> > msize. Check against the previously allocated buffer capacity instead.
>
> Thanks for the follow up!
>
> > - Omit this size check entirely for zero-copy messages, as those always
> > allocate 4k (P9_ZC_HDR_SZ) linear buffers which are not used for actual
> > payload and can be much bigger than 4k.
>
> [review includes the new flag patch]
>
> hmm, unless there's anywhere else you think we might use these flags it
> looks simpler to just pass a flag to p9_check_errors?

For now that would do as well of course. I just had a feeling that this might
be used for other purposes as well in future and some of these functions are
already somewhat overloaded with arguments.

No strong opinion, your choice.

> In particular adding a bool in this position is not particularly efficient:
> -------(pahole)-----
> struct p9_fcall {
> u32 size; /* 0 4 */
> u8 id; /* 4 1 */
>
> /* XXX 1 byte hole, try to pack */
>
> u16 tag; /* 6 2 */
> size_t offset; /* 8 8 */
> size_t capacity; /* 16 8 */
> bool zc; /* 24 1 */
>
> /* XXX 7 bytes hole, try to pack */
>
> struct kmem_cache * cache; /* 32 8 */
> u8 * sdata; /* 40 8 */
>
> /* size: 48, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
> /* sum members: 40, holes: 2, sum holes: 8 */
> /* last cacheline: 48 bytes */
> };
> ----------------
> Not that adding it between id and tag sounds better to me, so this is
> probably just as good as anywhere else :-D

Yeah, that layout optimization would make sense indeed.

> Anyway, I'm just nitpicking -- on principle I agree just whitelisting zc
> requests from this check makes most sense, happy with either way if you
> think this is better for the future.
>
> > - Replace p9_debug() by pr_err() to make sure this message is always
> > printed in case this error is triggered.
> >
> > - Add 9p message type to error message to ease investigation.
>
> Yes to these log changes!
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
> > ---
> > net/9p/client.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
> > index 30dd82f49b28..63f13dd1ecff 100644
> > --- a/net/9p/client.c
> > +++ b/net/9p/client.c
> > @@ -514,10 +514,10 @@ static int p9_check_errors(struct p9_client *c, struct p9_req_t *req)
> > int ecode;
> >
> > err = p9_parse_header(&req->rc, NULL, &type, NULL, 0);
> > - if (req->rc.size >= c->msize) {
> > - p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_ERROR,
> > - "requested packet size too big: %d\n",
> > - req->rc.size);
> > + if (req->rc.size > req->rc.capacity && !req->rc.zc) {
> > + pr_err(
> > + "requested packet size too big: %d does not fit %ld (type=%d)\n",
> > + req->rc.size, req->rc.capacity, req->rc.id);
>
> Haven't seen this style before -- is that what qemu uses?
> We normally keep the message on first line and align e.g.

Lazy me, I haven't run checkpatch.pl this time. I'll fix that.

I also have to fix the format specifier for `capacity` that kernel test bot
barked on.

> > + pr_err("requested packet size too big: %d does not fit %ld (type=%d)\n",
> > + req->rc.size, req->rc.capacity, req->rc.id);
>
> (at least what's what other grep -A 1 'pr_err.*,$' seem to do, and
> checkpatch is happier with that)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-22 12:28    [W:0.055 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site