[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 08/18] xen/pvcalls: implement connect command
On 03/07/17 23:08, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > Allocate a socket. Keep track of socket <-> ring mappings with a new data > structure, called sock_mapping. Implement the connect command by calling > inet_stream_connect, and mapping the new indexes page and data ring. > Allocate a workqueue and a work_struct, called ioworker, to perform > reads and writes to the socket. > > When an active socket is closed (sk_state_change), set in_error to > -ENOTCONN and notify the other end, as specified by the protocol. > > sk_data_ready and pvcalls_back_ioworker will be implemented later. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx > CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx > --- > drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 174 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 174 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > index 53fd908..1bc2620 100644 > --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > @@ -54,6 +54,39 @@ struct pvcalls_fedata { > struct semaphore socket_lock; > }; > > +struct pvcalls_ioworker { > + struct work_struct register_work; > + struct workqueue_struct *wq; > +}; > + > +struct sock_mapping { > + struct list_head list; > + struct pvcalls_fedata *fedata; > + struct socket *sock; > + uint64_t id; > + grant_ref_t ref; > + struct pvcalls_data_intf *ring; > + void *bytes; > + struct pvcalls_data data; > + uint32_t ring_order; > + int irq; > + atomic_t read; > + atomic_t write; > + atomic_t io; > + atomic_t release; > + void (*saved_data_ready)(struct sock *sk); > + struct pvcalls_ioworker ioworker; > +}; > + > +static irqreturn_t pvcalls_back_conn_event(int irq, void *sock_map); > +static int pvcalls_back_release_active(struct xenbus_device *dev, > + struct pvcalls_fedata *fedata, > + struct sock_mapping *map); > + > +static void pvcalls_back_ioworker(struct work_struct *work) > +{ > +} > + > static int pvcalls_back_socket(struct xenbus_device *dev, > struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > { > @@ -82,9 +115,145 @@ static int pvcalls_back_socket(struct xenbus_device *dev, > return 0; > } > > +static void pvcalls_sk_state_change(struct sock *sock) > +{ > + struct sock_mapping *map = sock->sk_user_data; > + struct pvcalls_data_intf *intf; > + > + if (map == NULL) > + return; > + > + intf = map->ring; > + intf->in_error = -ENOTCONN; > + notify_remote_via_irq(map->irq); > +} > + > +static void pvcalls_sk_data_ready(struct sock *sock) > +{ > +} > + > +static struct sock_mapping *pvcalls_new_active_socket( > + struct pvcalls_fedata *fedata, > + uint64_t id, > + grant_ref_t ref, > + uint32_t evtchn, > + struct socket *sock) > +{ > + int ret; > + struct sock_mapping *map; > + void *page; > + > + map = kzalloc(sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (map == NULL) > + return NULL; > + > + map->fedata = fedata; > + map->sock = sock; > + map->id = id; > + map->ref = ref; > + > + ret = xenbus_map_ring_valloc(fedata->dev, &ref, 1, &page); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + map->ring = page; > + map->ring_order = map->ring->ring_order; > + /* first read the order, then map the data ring */ > + virt_rmb(); > + if (map->ring_order > MAX_RING_ORDER) { > + pr_warn("%s frontend requested ring_order %u, which is > MAX > (%u)\n", > + __func__, map->ring_order, MAX_RING_ORDER); > + goto out; > + } > + ret = xenbus_map_ring_valloc(fedata->dev, map->ring->ref, > + (1 << map->ring_order), &page); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + map->bytes = page; > + > + ret = bind_interdomain_evtchn_to_irqhandler(fedata->dev->otherend_id, > + evtchn, > + pvcalls_back_conn_event, > + 0, > + "pvcalls-backend", > + map); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + map->irq = ret; > + > + map->data.in = map->bytes; > + map->data.out = map->bytes + XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(map->ring_order); > + > + map->ioworker.wq = alloc_workqueue("pvcalls_io", WQ_UNBOUND, 1); > + if (!map->ioworker.wq) > + goto out; > + atomic_set(&map->io, 1); > + INIT_WORK(&map->ioworker.register_work, pvcalls_back_ioworker); > + > + down(&fedata->socket_lock); > + list_add_tail(&map->list, &fedata->socket_mappings); > + up(&fedata->socket_lock); > + > + write_lock_bh(&map->sock->sk->sk_callback_lock); > + map->saved_data_ready = map->sock->sk->sk_data_ready; > + map->sock->sk->sk_user_data = map; > + map->sock->sk->sk_data_ready = pvcalls_sk_data_ready; > + map->sock->sk->sk_state_change = pvcalls_sk_state_change; > + write_unlock_bh(&map->sock->sk->sk_callback_lock); > + > + return map; > +out: > + down(&fedata->socket_lock); > + list_del(&map->list); > + pvcalls_back_release_active(fedata->dev, fedata, map); > + up(&fedata->socket_lock); > + return NULL; > +} > + > static int pvcalls_back_connect(struct xenbus_device *dev, > struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > { > + struct pvcalls_fedata *fedata; > + int ret = -EINVAL; > + struct socket *sock; > + struct sock_mapping *map; > + struct xen_pvcalls_response *rsp; > + > + fedata = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); > + > + ret = sock_create(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0, &sock); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + ret = inet_stream_connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&req->u.connect.addr, > + req->u.connect.len, req->u.connect.flags); Shouldn't there be some kind of validation, e.g. whether req->u.connect.len isn't larger than sizeof(req->u.connect.addr) ? Are all flags really valid to specify? I'd like to have at least a comment stating that everything is save without validation. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |