lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] inet: Add skb_copy_datagram_iter
From
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 03:25:34 +0000

> * a new helper: zerocopy_sg_from_iter(). I have it, actually,
> but I'd rather not step on Herbert's toes - it's too close to the areas
> his series will touch, so that's probably for when his series goes in.
> It will be needed for complete macvtap conversion...

Just a heads up, his series is applied to net-next.

> * why doesn't verify_iovec() use rw_copy_check_uvector()? The only
> real differences I see is that (a) you do allocation in callers (same as
> rw_copy_check_uvector() would've done), (b) you return EMSGSIZE in case of
> too long vector, while rw_copy_check_uvector() returns EINVAL in that case
> and (c) you don't do access_ok(). The last one is described as optimization,
> but for iov_iter primitives it's a serious PITA - for iovec-backed instances
> they are using __copy_from_user()/__copy_to_user(), etc.

The answer is that nobody knew abuot it and looked, that's why.

> It certainly would be nice to have the same code doing all copying
> of iovecs from userland - readv/writev/aio/sendmsg/recvmsg/etc. Am I
> missing something subtle semantical difference in there? EMSGSIZE vs EINVAL
> is trivial (we can lift that check into the callers, if nothing else), but
> I could miss something more interesting...

We also need compat counterparts.

> * various getfrag will need to grow iov_iter-based counterparts,
> but ip_append_output() needs no changes, AFAICS.

Right.

> * there's some really weird stuff in there. Just what is this
> static int raw_probe_proto_opt(struct flowi4 *fl4, struct msghdr *msg)
> {
> struct iovec *iov;
> u8 __user *type = NULL;
> u8 __user *code = NULL;
> int probed = 0;
> unsigned int i;
>
> if (!msg->msg_iov)
> return 0;
>
> for (i = 0; i < msg->msg_iovlen; i++) {
> iov = &msg->msg_iov[i];
> if (!iov)
> continue;
> trying to do? "If non-NULL pointer + i somehow happened to be NULL, skip it
> and try to use the same pointer + i + 1"? Huh? Had been that way since
> the function first went in back in 2004 ("[IPV4] XFRM: probe icmp type/code
> when sending packets via raw socket.", according to historical tree)...

This is probably just bogus, because this address-of will never evaluate to
NULL.

> * rds, bluetooth and vsock are doing something odd; need to RTFS some
> more.

It is not surprising.... :-/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-07 23:21    [W:0.113 / U:2.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site