Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netfront: pull on receive skb may need to happen earlier

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:58:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.07.13 at 18:51, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:52:31AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.07.13 at 17:48, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:20:26PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> @@ -1014,7 +1025,7 @@ err:
> >> >>  
> >> >>                 skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0].page_offset = rx->offset;
> >> >>                 skb_frag_size_set(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0], 
> >> >> rx->status);
> >> >> -               skb->data_len = rx->status;
> >> >> +               skb->len = skb->data_len = rx->status;
> >> > 
> >> > This is not correct. You should not be needing this. Now you lose count
> >> > of SKB head len. Try to go without the above line and see if it makes a
> >> > difference?
> >> 
> >> I don't follow - at this point, there's 0 bytes of head (this only
> >> changes with the first call to __pskb_pull_tail()). Hence ->len ==
> >> ->data_len seems correct to me (and afaict pulling would do the
> >> wrong thing if I dropped that change).
> >> 
> > 
> > My bad, I suggested the wrong thing. :-(
> > 
> > But I would prefer skb->len += skb->data_len. In the case that skb->len
> > == 0 it's the same as your line while skb->len is not zero it would also
> > do the right thing.
> 
> I can do that, albeit I don't see how ->len could end up non-zero
> here.
> 
> > As for the warning in skb_try_coalesce, I don't see any direct call to
> > it in netfront, I will need to think about it. It looks like it's really
> > something very deep in the stack.
> 
> Yes, as the call stack provided by Dion proves. The question
> really is whether the patch somehow results in ->truesize to be
> incorrect, or whether - as Eric points out - this is "normal" for
> the sort of special SKBs here (having a rather small headlen). If
> what he says is applicable here, it may hint at the pulling we do
> still not being sufficient for the full TCP header to be in the linear

__netdev_alloc_skb in netfront is fed with RX_COPY_THRESHOLD+NET_IP_ALIGN.
RX_COPY_THRESHOLD is 256 while MAX_TCP_HEADER can be as larger as 256+48
depending on kernel configurations.

> part (which iirc is the main [if not the only purpose] of us doing
> the pull in the first place).
> 

Ian, any comment on this?

Jan, looking at the commit log, the overrun issue in
xennet_get_responses was not introduced by __pskb_pull_tail. The call to
xennet_fill_frags has always been in the same place.

Now I start to think about the purpose of "max = MAX_SKB_FRAGS +
(rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD)" in xennet_get_responses which queues
up to MAX_SKB_FRAGS+1 responeses. I'm not clear about the rationale
of that line.


Wei.

> Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel