| Message ID | 1700565725-2706-1-git-send-email-yangpc@wangsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | skmsg: Add the data length in skmsg to SIOCINQ ioctl and rx_queue | expand |
On 11/21/23 12:22 PM, Pengcheng Yang wrote: > When using skmsg redirect, the msg is queued in psock->ingress_msg, > and the application calling SIOCINQ ioctl will return a readable > length of 0, and we cannot track the data length of ingress_msg with > the ss tool. > > In this patch set, we added the data length in ingress_msg to the > SIOCINQ ioctl and the rx_queue of tcp_diag. > > v2: > - Add READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() on accesses to psock->msg_len > - Mask out the increment msg_len where its not needed Please double check BPF CI, this series might be breaking sockmap selftests : https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/6922624338/job/18829650043 [...] Notice: Success: 501/13458, Skipped: 57, Failed: 1 Error: #281 sockmap_basic Error: #281/16 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict fionread Error: #281/16 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict fionread test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:bpf_prog_attach 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:socket_loopback(s) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:create_socket_pairs(s) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem(c1) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:xsend(p0) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:FAIL:ioctl(FIONREAD) unexpected ioctl(FIONREAD): actual 512 != expected 256 test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:recv_timeout(c0) 0 nsec Error: #281/18 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict msg_f_peek Error: #281/18 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict msg_f_peek test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:bpf_prog_attach 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:socket_loopback(s) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:create_pairs(s) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem(c1) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:xsend(p1) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:recv(c1) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:FAIL:after peek ioctl(FIONREAD) unexpected after peek ioctl(FIONREAD): actual 512 != expected 256 test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:recv(p0) 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:after read ioctl(FIONREAD) 0 nsec Test Results: bpftool: PASS test_progs-no_alu32: FAIL (returned 1) shutdown: CLEAN Error: Process completed with exit code 1.
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > On 11/21/23 12:22 PM, Pengcheng Yang wrote: > > When using skmsg redirect, the msg is queued in psock->ingress_msg, > > and the application calling SIOCINQ ioctl will return a readable > > length of 0, and we cannot track the data length of ingress_msg with > > the ss tool. > > > > In this patch set, we added the data length in ingress_msg to the > > SIOCINQ ioctl and the rx_queue of tcp_diag. > > > > v2: > > - Add READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() on accesses to psock->msg_len > > - Mask out the increment msg_len where its not needed > > Please double check BPF CI, this series might be breaking sockmap selftests : > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/6922624338/job/18829650043 > Is this a misunderstanding? The selftests failure above were run on patch set v1 4 days ago, and this patch v2 is the fix for this case. > [...] > Notice: Success: 501/13458, Skipped: 57, Failed: 1 > Error: #281 sockmap_basic > Error: #281/16 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict fionread > Error: #281/16 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict fionread > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:bpf_prog_attach 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:socket_loopback(s) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:create_socket_pairs(s) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem(c1) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:xsend(p0) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:FAIL:ioctl(FIONREAD) unexpected ioctl(FIONREAD): actual 512 != expected 256 > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_fionread:PASS:recv_timeout(c0) 0 nsec > Error: #281/18 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict msg_f_peek > Error: #281/18 sockmap_basic/sockmap skb_verdict msg_f_peek > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:open_and_load 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:bpf_prog_attach 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:socket_loopback(s) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:create_pairs(s) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem(c1) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:xsend(p1) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:recv(c1) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:FAIL:after peek ioctl(FIONREAD) unexpected after peek ioctl(FIONREAD): actual 512 != expected 256 > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:recv(p0) 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:ioctl(FIONREAD) error 0 nsec > test_sockmap_skb_verdict_peek:PASS:after read ioctl(FIONREAD) 0 nsec > Test Results: > bpftool: PASS > test_progs-no_alu32: FAIL (returned 1) > shutdown: CLEAN > Error: Process completed with exit code 1.
On 11/23/23 12:20 PM, Pengcheng Yang wrote: > Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> On 11/21/23 12:22 PM, Pengcheng Yang wrote: >>> When using skmsg redirect, the msg is queued in psock->ingress_msg, >>> and the application calling SIOCINQ ioctl will return a readable >>> length of 0, and we cannot track the data length of ingress_msg with >>> the ss tool. >>> >>> In this patch set, we added the data length in ingress_msg to the >>> SIOCINQ ioctl and the rx_queue of tcp_diag. >>> >>> v2: >>> - Add READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() on accesses to psock->msg_len >>> - Mask out the increment msg_len where its not needed >> >> Please double check BPF CI, this series might be breaking sockmap selftests : >> >> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/6922624338/job/18829650043 > > Is this a misunderstanding? > The selftests failure above were run on patch set v1 4 days ago, and this patch v2 > is the fix for this case. Indeed looks like there were two CI emails on v2 as well, one pointing to failure (which was also linked from patchwork), and one to success, both pointing to: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=802821&state=* Let me rerun, meanwhile, I placed it back to 'under review'.