On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 07:33:29AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:12:46 +1000 > David Gibson wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:32:55PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:37:14 +1000 > > > David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > We've already gotten rid of most of the IPv4/IPv6 specific data structures > > > > in udp.c by merging them with each other. One significant one remains: > > > > udp[46]_mh_recv. This was a bit awkward to remove because of a subtle > > > > interaction. We initialise the msg_namelen fields to represent the total > > > > size we have for a socket address, but when we receive into the arrays > > > > those are modified to the actual length of the sockaddr we received. > > > > > > > > That meant that naively merging the arrays meant that if we received IPv4 > > > > datagrams, then IPv6 datagrams, the addresses for the latter would be > > > > truncated. In this patch address that by resetting the received > > > > msg_namelen as soon as we've found a flow for the datagram. Finding the > > > > flow is the only thing that might use the actual sockaddr length, although > > > > we in fact don't need it for the time being. > > > > > > > > This also removes the last use of the 'v6' field from udp_listen_epoll_ref, > > > > so remove that as well. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson > > > > --- > > > > udp.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------- > > > > udp.h | 2 -- > > > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/udp.c b/udp.c > > > > index 8a93aad6..6638c22b 100644 > > > > --- a/udp.c > > > > +++ b/udp.c > > > > @@ -178,8 +178,7 @@ enum udp_iov_idx { > > > > > > > > /* IOVs and msghdr arrays for receiving datagrams from sockets */ > > > > static struct iovec udp_iov_recv [UDP_MAX_FRAMES]; > > > > -static struct mmsghdr udp4_mh_recv [UDP_MAX_FRAMES]; > > > > -static struct mmsghdr udp6_mh_recv [UDP_MAX_FRAMES]; > > > > +static struct mmsghdr udp_mh_recv [UDP_MAX_FRAMES]; > > > > > > > > /* IOVs and msghdr arrays for sending "spliced" datagrams to sockets */ > > > > static union sockaddr_inany udp_splice_to; > > > > @@ -222,6 +221,7 @@ void udp_update_l2_buf(const unsigned char *eth_d, const unsigned char *eth_s) > > > > static void udp_iov_init_one(const struct ctx *c, size_t i) > > > > { > > > > struct udp_payload_t *payload = &udp_payload[i]; > > > > + struct msghdr *mh = &udp_mh_recv[i].msg_hdr; > > > > struct udp_meta_t *meta = &udp_meta[i]; > > > > struct iovec *siov = &udp_iov_recv[i]; > > > > struct iovec *tiov = udp_l2_iov[i]; > > > > @@ -236,27 +236,10 @@ static void udp_iov_init_one(const struct ctx *c, size_t i) > > > > tiov[UDP_IOV_TAP] = tap_hdr_iov(c, &meta->taph); > > > > tiov[UDP_IOV_PAYLOAD].iov_base = payload; > > > > > > > > - /* It's useful to have separate msghdr arrays for receiving. Otherwise, > > > > - * an IPv4 recv() will alter msg_namelen, so we'd have to reset it every > > > > - * time or risk truncating the address on future IPv6 recv()s. > > > > - */ > > > > - if (c->ifi4) { > > > > - struct msghdr *mh = &udp4_mh_recv[i].msg_hdr; > > > > - > > > > - mh->msg_name = &meta->s_in; > > > > - mh->msg_namelen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); > > > > - mh->msg_iov = siov; > > > > - mh->msg_iovlen = 1; > > > > - } > > > > - > > > > - if (c->ifi6) { > > > > - struct msghdr *mh = &udp6_mh_recv[i].msg_hdr; > > > > - > > > > - mh->msg_name = &meta->s_in; > > > > - mh->msg_namelen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6); > > > > - mh->msg_iov = siov; > > > > - mh->msg_iovlen = 1; > > > > - } > > > > + mh->msg_name = &meta->s_in; > > > > + mh->msg_namelen = sizeof(meta->s_in); > > > > + mh->msg_iov = siov; > > > > + mh->msg_iovlen = 1; > > > > } > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -506,10 +489,10 @@ static int udp_sock_recv(const struct ctx *c, int s, uint32_t events, > > > > void udp_listen_sock_handler(const struct ctx *c, union epoll_ref ref, > > > > uint32_t events, const struct timespec *now) > > > > { > > > > - struct mmsghdr *mmh_recv = ref.udp.v6 ? udp6_mh_recv : udp4_mh_recv; > > > > + const socklen_t sasize = sizeof(udp_meta[0].s_in); > > > > int n, i; > > > > > > > > - if ((n = udp_sock_recv(c, ref.fd, events, mmh_recv)) <= 0) > > > > + if ((n = udp_sock_recv(c, ref.fd, events, udp_mh_recv)) <= 0) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > /* We divide datagrams into batches based on how we need to send them, > > > > @@ -518,6 +501,7 @@ void udp_listen_sock_handler(const struct ctx *c, union epoll_ref ref, > > > > * populate it one entry *ahead* of the loop counter. > > > > */ > > > > udp_meta[0].tosidx = udp_flow_from_sock(c, ref, &udp_meta[0].s_in, now); > > > > + udp_mh_recv[0].msg_hdr.msg_namelen = sasize; > > > > > > I don't understand why you need this assignment. To me it looks > > > redundant with: > > > > > > udp_mh_recv[i].msg_hdr.msg_namelen = sizeof(udp_meta[i].s_in); > > > > It's not redundant per se, because the later assignment only occurs > > for i > 0, so the first one is for slot 0. > > I still don't see how: the second assignment (out of three) is done > before i is incremented, so that should cover i == 0 as well, right? > > > It would, however, be > > possible to move to a single assignment in the loop body before i is > > incremented. > > > > I did it this way, because I found it easier to reason about. At > > least theoretically the value of msg_namelen written by recvmmsg() > > could be important, although we don't use yet (we rely on the > > sa_family field instead). But because of that it felt wrong to > > overwrite that value before we've "consumed" it. Logically that > > happens in udp_flow_from_sock() which is what takes the address in > > msg_name / msg_namelen and converts it into the long-term form (as > > part of the flowside). Hence, clearing msg_namelen immediately after > > each call to udp_flow_from_sock() made sense to me. > > > > I did consider changing udp_flow_from_sock() to take a socklen_t * > > which it clears after using. That seemed slightly abstraction > > violationy to me: clearing msg_namelen only makes sense because the > > address is part of a re-used mmsghdr array, and that's not something > > udp_flow_from_sock() "knows". > > > > That was my reasoning, anyway. I'm happy enough to change it if you > > have a preferred approach. > > No, no, this all makes sense. But you add three assignments here, and I > don't understand why #1 is needed if we have #2 and #3, or why #2 is > needed if we have #1 and #3. Oh, bother, somehow I missed #2 when reading your comments. It's a leftover from an earlier draft and is not supposed to be there. New spin shortly. -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson