On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that
> > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it
> > > > > for an individual system call.
> > > > > If we know that we're going to use dmabuf with the socket, maybe we
> > > > > should move this flag to the socket() syscall?
> > > > >
> > > > > fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, SOCK_DEVMEM);
> > > > >
> > > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > I think it should then be a setsockopt called before any data is
> > > > exchanged, with no change of modifying mode later. We generally use
> > > > setsockopts for the mode of a socket. This use of the protocol field
> > > > in socket() for setting a mode would be novel. Also, it might miss
> > > > passively opened connections, or be overly restrictive: one approach
> > > > for all accepted child sockets.
> > >
> > > I was thinking this is similar to SOCK_CLOEXEC or SOCK_NONBLOCK? There
> > > are plenty of bits we can grab. But setsockopt works as well!
> >
> > To follow up: if we have this flag on a socket, not on a per-message
> > basis, can we also use recvmsg for the recycling part maybe?
> >
> > while (true) {
> > memset(msg, 0, ...);
> >
> > /* receive the tokens */
> > ret = recvmsg(fd, &msg, 0);
> >
> > /* recycle the tokens from the above recvmsg() */
> > ret = recvmsg(fd, &msg, MSG_RECYCLE);
> > }
> >
> > recvmsg + MSG_RECYCLE can parse the same format that regular recvmsg
> > exports (SO_DEVMEM_OFFSET) and we can also add extra cmsg option
> > to recycle a range.
> >
> > Will this be more straightforward than a setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED)?
> > Or is it more confusing?
>
> It would have to be sendmsg, as recvmsg is a copy_to_user operation.
>
>
> I am not aware of any precedent in multiplexing the data stream and a
> control operation stream in this manner. It would also require adding
> a branch in the sendmsg hot path.
Is it too much plumbing to copy_from_user msg_control deep in recvmsg
stack where we need it? Mixing in sendmsg is indeed ugly :-(
Regarding hot patch: aren't we already doing copy_to_user for the tokens in
this hot path, so having one extra condition shouldn't hurt too much?
> The memory is associated with the socket, freed when the socket is
> closed as well as on SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED. Fundamentally it is a socket
> state operation, for which setsockopt is the socket interface.
>
> Is your request purely a dislike, or is there some technical concern
> with BPF and setsockopt?
It's mostly because I've been bitten too much by custom socket options that
are not really on/off/update-value operations:
29ebbba7d461 - bpf: Don't EFAULT for {g,s}setsockopt with wrong optlen
00e74ae08638 - bpf: Don't EFAULT for getsockopt with optval=NULL
9cacf81f8161 - bpf: Remove extra lock_sock for TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE
d8fe449a9c51 - bpf: Don't return EINVAL from {get,set}sockopt when optlen > PAGE_SIZE
I do agree that this particular case of SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED seems ok, but
things tend to evolve and change.
