Ping: [PATCH] xen-netback: correct success/error reporting for the SKB-with-fraglist case

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 20.05.2021 13:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.02.2021 17:23, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> On 25/02/2021 14:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 25.02.2021 13:11, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2021 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 24.02.2021 17:39, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/02/2021 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> When re-entering the main loop of xenvif_tx_check_gop() a 2nd time, the
>>>>>>> special considerations for the head of the SKB no longer apply. Don't
>>>>>>> mistakenly report ERROR to the frontend for the first entry in the list,
>>>>>>> even if - from all I can tell - this shouldn't matter much as the 
>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>> transmit will need to be considered failed anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>>>>>>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ check_frags:
>>>>>>>                                  * the header's copy failed, and they 
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>                                  * sharing a slot, send an error
>>>>>>>                                  */
>>>>>>> -                               if (i == 0 && sharedslot)
>>>>>>> +                               if (i == 0 && !first_shinfo && 
>>>>>>> sharedslot)
>>>>>>>                                         xenvif_idx_release(queue, 
>>>>>>> pending_idx,
>>>>>>>                                                            
>>>>>>> XEN_NETIF_RSP_ERROR);
>>>>>>>                                 else
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this will DTRT, but to my mind it would make more sense to clear
>>>>>> 'sharedslot' before the 'goto check_frags' at the bottom of the function.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my initial idea as well, but
>>>>> - I think it is for a reason that the variable is "const".
>>>>> - There is another use of it which would then instead need further
>>>>>     amending (and which I believe is at least part of the reason for
>>>>>     the variable to be "const").
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes. But now that I look again, don't you want:
>>>>
>>>> if (i == 0 && first_shinfo && sharedslot)
>>>>
>>>> ? (i.e no '!')
>>>>
>>>> The comment states that the error should be indicated when the first
>>>> frag contains the header in the case that the map succeeded but the
>>>> prior copy from the same ref failed. This can only possibly be the case
>>>> if this is the 'first_shinfo'
>>>
>>> I don't think so, no - there's a difference between "first frag"
>>> (at which point first_shinfo is NULL) and first frag list entry
>>> (at which point first_shinfo is non-NULL).
>>
>> Yes, I realise I got it backwards. Confusing name but the comment above 
>> its declaration does explain.
>>
>>>
>>>> (which is why I still think it is safe to unconst 'sharedslot' and
>>>> clear it).
>>>
>>> And "no" here as well - this piece of code
>>>
>>>             /* First error: if the header haven't shared a slot with the
>>>              * first frag, release it as well.
>>>              */
>>>             if (!sharedslot)
>>>                     xenvif_idx_release(queue,
>>>                                        XENVIF_TX_CB(skb)->pending_idx,
>>>                                        XEN_NETIF_RSP_OKAY);
>>>
>>> specifically requires sharedslot to have the value that was
>>> assigned to it at the start of the function (this property
>>> doesn't go away when switching from fragments to frag list).
>>> Note also how it uses XENVIF_TX_CB(skb)->pending_idx, i.e. the
>>> value the local variable pending_idx was set from at the start
>>> of the function.
>>>
>>
>> True, we do have to deal with freeing up the header if the first map 
>> error comes on the frag list.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Since I've not seen this go into 5.13-rc, may I ask what the disposition
> of this is?

I can't seem to spot this in 5.14-rc either. I have to admit I'm
increasingly puzzled ...

Jan