On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:42:19PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
On 28.03.2023 12:42, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
I pressed send too early...
CCing Bryan, Vishnu, and pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:39 AM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 01:13:11AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
This removes behaviour, where error code returned from any transport
was always switched to ENOMEM. This works in the same way as:
commit
c43170b7e157 ("vsock: return errors other than -ENOMEM to socket"),
but for receive calls.
Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index 19aea7cba26e..9262e0b77d47 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -2007,7 +2007,7 @@ static int __vsock_stream_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
read = transport->stream_dequeue(vsk, msg, len - copied, flags);
In vmci_transport_stream_dequeue() vmci_qpair_peekv() and
vmci_qpair_dequev() return VMCI_ERROR_* in case of errors.
Maybe we should return -ENOMEM in vmci_transport_stream_dequeue() if
those functions fail to keep the same behavior.
Yes, seems i missed it, because several months ago we had similar question for send
logic:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4611091.html
And it was ok to not handle VMCI send path in this way. So i think current implementation
for tx is a little bit buggy, because VMCI specific error from 'vmci_qpair_enquev()' is
returned to af_vsock.c. I think error conversion must be added to VMCI transport for tx
also.
Good point!
These are negative values, so there are no big problems, but I don't
know what the user expects in this case.
@Vishnu Do we want to return an errno to the user or a VMCI_ERROR_*?
In both cases I think we should do the same for both enqueue and
dequeue.
Good thing is that Hyper-V uses general error codes.
Yeah!
Thanks,
Stefano
Thanks, Arseniy
CCing Bryan, Vishnu, and pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx
The other transports seem okay to me.
Thanks,
Stefano
if (read < 0) {
- err = -ENOMEM;
+ err = read;
break;
}
@@ -2058,7 +2058,7 @@ static int __vsock_seqpacket_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
msg_len = transport->seqpacket_dequeue(vsk, msg, flags);
if (msg_len < 0) {
- err = -ENOMEM;
+ err = msg_len;
goto out;
}
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
