Cong Wang wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Implement ->read_sock() for AF_UNIX datagram socket, it is
> pretty much similar to udp_read_sock().
>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> +static int unix_read_sock(struct sock *sk, read_descriptor_t *desc,
> + sk_read_actor_t recv_actor)
> +{
> + int copied = 0;
> +
> + while (1) {
> + struct unix_sock *u = unix_sk(sk);
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + int used, err;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&u->iolock);
> + skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, 0, 1, &err);
> + mutex_unlock(&u->iolock);
> + if (!skb)
> + return err;
> +
> + used = recv_actor(desc, skb, 0, skb->len);
> + if (used <= 0) {
> + if (!copied)
> + copied = used;
> + kfree_skb(skb);
Is it OK to drop a unix dgram? I think the sockets likely wouldn't
expect this?
Anyways I'll have a proposed fix for TCP side shortly. And we can
extend it here as well if needed.
> + break;
> + } else if (used <= skb->len) {
> + copied += used;
> + }
> +
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + if (!desc->count)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return copied;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Sleep until more data has arrived. But check for races..
> */
> --
> 2.27.0
>
