lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net v1] virtio_net: Introduce skb_vnet_common_hdr to avoid typecasting
From


On 2023-08-16 a.m.10:53, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>>
>> I kept virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf and virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash structures in
>> virtio_net.h, which can be forward compatible with existing user
>> applications which use these structures.
>
> They're UAPI, so we cannot modify or remove them anyway.
>
> Which is exactly why we want to be careful with adding anything new.
>
ok

>> virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash cannot use virtio_net_hdr as the first member,
>> because in virtio_net_hdr_v1, csum_start and csum_offset are stored in
>> union as a structure, and virtio_net_hdr cannot be used instead.
>
> Oh right. That wasn't always the case, or the reason for this.
> Not super relevant but, commit ed9ecb0415b9 has the history
>
> virtio: Don't expose legacy net features when VIRTIO_NET_NO_LEGACY defined.
>
> In particular, the virtio header always has the u16 num_buffers field.
> We define a new 'struct virtio_net_hdr_v1' for this (rather than
> simply calling it 'struct virtio_net_hdr', to avoid nasty type errors
> if some parts of a project define VIRTIO_NET_NO_LEGACY and some don't.
>
> Transitional devices (which can't define VIRTIO_NET_NO_LEGACY) will
> have to keep using struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf, which has the same
> byte layout as struct virtio_net_hdr_v1.
>
> The union was added to overload csum use on tx with RSC use on rx, in
> commit 22b436c9b568. I don't quite follow why there now are three
> structs, rather than two. The first two seem to both implement csum
> partial. Anyway, not super important here.
>ok

>> In addition, I put this new structure virtio_net_common_hdr in uapi,
>> hoping it could be used in future user space application to avoid
>> potential risks caused by type coercion (such as the problems mentioned
>> in the patch description ). So I think it should be in this header file.
>> What do you think?
>
> Adding anything to UAPI has a high bar. Do you have a concrete use
> case for this?

In the scene of with and without VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT feature, this
patch has been tested on my setup, and the function is ok.

>
> This does seem mostly a helper to simplify kernel logic to me, which
> is better kept in non-UAPI headers.
OK, will change it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-16 20:32    [W:0.048 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site