search for: sk_lock

...e patch I have a very similar call-trace (as expected): ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 5.3.0-vsock #17 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- python3/872 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88802b650110 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: virtio_transport_release+0x34/0x330 [vmw_vsock_virtio_transport_common] but task is already holding lock: ffff88803597ce10 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x3f/0x130 [vsock] other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scena...

...hen __vsock_release() > is called recursively: > > ============================================ > WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > 5.3.0+ #1 Not tainted > -------------------------------------------- > server/1795 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff8880c5158990 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock] > > but task is already holding lock: > ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock] > > other info that might help us debug this: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU...

...hen __vsock_release() > is called recursively: > > ============================================ > WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > 5.3.0+ #1 Not tainted > -------------------------------------------- > server/1795 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff8880c5158990 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock] > > but task is already holding lock: > ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock] > > other info that might help us debug this: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU...

...; + size_t bytes, total = 0; + int err = -EFAULT; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { + if (total == len) + break; + + bytes = len - total; + if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) + bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; + + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. + */ + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); + if (err) + goto out; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + total += bytes...

...; + size_t bytes, total = 0; + int err = -EFAULT; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { + if (total == len) + break; + + bytes = len - total; + if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) + bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; + + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. + */ + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); + if (err) + goto out; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + total += bytes...

...ket where the unread data starts. So here we should initialize 'off': off = pkt->off; Or just use pkt->off later (without increasing it as in the dequeue). > + bytes = len - total; > + if (bytes > pkt->len - off) > + bytes = pkt->len - off; > + > + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > + */ > + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > + > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + off, bytes); > + if (err) > + goto out; > + > + spin_lock_bh(&...

...; virtio transports). > > Acked-by: Dexuan Cui <decui at microsoft.com> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> > --- > RFC -> v1: > - changed .notify_buffer_size return to void (Stefan) > - documented that .notify_buffer_size is called with sk_lock held (Stefan) > --- > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 7 +- > include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 15 +---- > include/net/af_vsock.h | 15 ++--- > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 43 ++++++++++--- > net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c...

...#39;buffer_size' requested (e.g. virtio transports). Acked-by: Dexuan Cui <decui at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> --- RFC -> v1: - changed .notify_buffer_size return to void (Stefan) - documented that .notify_buffer_size is called with sk_lock held (Stefan) --- drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 7 +- include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 15 +---- include/net/af_vsock.h | 15 ++--- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 43 ++++++++++--- net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c | 36 ----------- net/vmw_v...

...; + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > + > + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { > + if (total == len) > + break; > + > + bytes = len - total; > + if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) > + bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; > + > + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > + */ > + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > + > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); > + if (err) > + goto out; > + > + spin_lock_...

...vvs->rx_lock); + + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { + off = pkt->off; + + if (total == len) + break; + + while (total < len && off < pkt->len) { + bytes = len - total; + if (bytes > pkt->len - off) + bytes = pkt->len - off; + + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. + */ + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + off, bytes); + if (err) + goto out; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + total += bytes...

...vvs->rx_lock); + + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { + off = pkt->off; + + if (total == len) + break; + + while (total < len && off < pkt->len) { + bytes = len - total; + if (bytes > pkt->len - off) + bytes = pkt->len - off; + + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. + */ + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + off, bytes); + if (err) + goto out; + + spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); + + total += bytes...

...+ > > + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { > > + if (total == len) > > + break; > > + > > + bytes = len - total; > > + if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) > > + bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; > > + > > + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > > + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > > + */ > > + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > + > > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); > > + if (err) > > +...

...+ > > + list_for_each_entry(pkt, &vvs->rx_queue, list) { > > + if (total == len) > > + break; > > + > > + bytes = len - total; > > + if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) > > + bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; > > + > > + /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > > + * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > > + */ > > + spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > + > > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); > > + if (err) > > +...

...x_queue, > + struct virtio_vsock_buf, list); > > bytes = len - total; > - if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) > - bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; > + if (bytes > buf->len - buf->off) > + bytes = buf->len - buf->off; > > /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > */ > spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > - err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, buf->addr + buf->off,...

...st); + buf = list_first_entry(&vvs->rx_queue, + struct virtio_vsock_buf, list); bytes = len - total; - if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) - bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; + if (bytes > buf->len - buf->off) + bytes = buf->len - buf->off; /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. */ spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); - err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, buf->addr + buf->off, bytes); if (err) goto o...

This series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use VSOCK with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using VMware

This series adds the multi-transports support to vsock, following this proposal: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg575792.html With the multi-transports support, we can use VSOCK with nested VMs (using also different hypervisors) loading both guest->host and host->guest transports at the same time. Before this series, vmci-transport supported this behavior but only using VMware

While I was testing this new series (v2) I discovered an huge use of memory and a memory leak in the virtio-vsock driver in the guest when I sent 1-byte packets to the guest. These issues are present since the introduction of the virtio-vsock driver. I added the patches 1 and 2 to fix them in this series in order to better track the performance trends. v1:

While I was testing this new series (v2) I discovered an huge use of memory and a memory leak in the virtio-vsock driver in the guest when I sent 1-byte packets to the guest. These issues are present since the introduction of the virtio-vsock driver. I added the patches 1 and 2 to fix them in this series in order to better track the performance trends. v1:

...eue, > + struct virtio_vsock_buf, list); > > bytes = len - total; > - if (bytes > pkt->len - pkt->off) > - bytes = pkt->len - pkt->off; > + if (bytes > buf->len - buf->off) > + bytes = buf->len - buf->off; > > /* sk_lock is held by caller so no one else can dequeue. > * Unlock rx_lock since memcpy_to_msg() may sleep. > */ > spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > - err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, pkt->buf + pkt->off, bytes); > + err = memcpy_to_msg(msg, buf->addr + buf->o...