Hi Arseny,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET
AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport.
Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'.
Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()'
etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using
return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc.
Current implementation based on message definition above.
Okay, so the implementation we merged is wrong right?
Should we disable the feature bit in stable kernels that contain it? Or
maybe we can backport the fixes...
Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message,
and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from
'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and
receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed.
To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing
'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it
works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'
is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace.
I understand that it makes sense to remap VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR to
MSG_EOR to make the user understand the boundaries, but why do we need
EOM as well?
Why do we care about the boundaries of a message within a record?
I mean, if the sender makes 3 calls:
send(A1,0)
send(A2,0)
send(A3, MSG_EOR);
IIUC it should be fine if the receiver for example receives all in one
single recv() calll with MSG_EOR set, so why do we need EOM?
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
