Re: [PATCH net] tuntap: raise EPOLLOUT on device up

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:22:11AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018å05æ22æ 06:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:47:42AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 21:00:43 +0800
> > > 
> > > > We return -EIO on device down but can not raise EPOLLOUT after it was
> > > > up. This may confuse user like vhost which expects tuntap to raise
> > > > EPOLLOUT to re-enable its TX routine after tuntap is down. This could
> > > > be easily reproduced by transmitting packets from VM while down and up
> > > > the tap device. Fixing this by set SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE on -EIO.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: 1bd4978a88ac2 ("tun: honor IFF_UP in tun_get_user()")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > I'm no so sure what to do with this patch.
> > > 
> > > Like Michael says, this flag bit is only checks upon transmit which
> > > may or may not happen after this point.  It doesn't seem to be
> > > guaranteed.
> 
> The flag is checked in tun_chr_poll() as well.
> 
> > Jason, can't we detect a link up transition and respond accordingly?
> > What do you think?
> > 
> 
> I think we've already tried to do this, in tun_net_open() we call
> write_space(). But the problem is the bit may not be set at that time.
> 
> A second thought is to set the bit in tun_chr_poll() instead of -EIO like:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index d45ac37..46a1573 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -1423,6 +1423,13 @@ static void tun_net_init(struct net_device *dev)
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev->max_mtu = MAX_MTU - dev->hard_header_len;
> Â}
> 
> +static bool tun_sock_writeable(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file
> *tfile)
> +{
> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ struct sock *sk = tfile->socket.sk;
> +
> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ return (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP) && sock_writeable(sk);
> +}
> +
> Â/* Character device part */
> 
> Â/* Poll */
> @@ -1445,10 +1452,9 @@ static __poll_t tun_chr_poll(struct file *file,
> poll_table *wait)
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (!ptr_ring_empty(&tfile->tx_ring))
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
> 
> -ÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (tun->dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
> -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ (sock_writeable(sk) ||
> -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags)
> &&
> -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ sock_writeable(sk))))
> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile) ||
> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags)
> &&
> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ tun_sock_writeable(tun, tfile)));
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
> 
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (tun->dev->reg_state != NETREG_REGISTERED)
> 
> Does this make more sense?
> 
> Thanks

I just understood the motivation for doing it on EIO.
Maybe there's a reason it makes sense here as well,
but it's far from obvious. I suggest you repost adding
an explanation in the comment. The original patch will
be fine with an explanation as well.