similar to: [PATCHv8 1/3] tun: export underlying socket

Tun device looks similar to a packet socket in that both pass complete frames from/to userspace. This patch fills in enough fields in the socket underlying tun driver to support sendmsg/recvmsg operations, and message flags MSG_TRUNC and MSG_DONTWAIT, and exports access to this socket to modules. Regular read/write behaviour is unchanged. This way, code using raw sockets to inject packets into

Tun device looks similar to a packet socket in that both pass complete frames from/to userspace. This patch fills in enough fields in the socket underlying tun driver to support sendmsg/recvmsg operations, and message flags MSG_TRUNC and MSG_DONTWAIT, and exports access to this socket to modules. Regular read/write behaviour is unchanged. This way, code using raw sockets to inject packets into

Tun device looks similar to a packet socket in that both pass complete frames from/to userspace. This patch fills in enough fields in the socket underlying tun driver to support sendmsg/recvmsg operations, and message flags MSG_TRUNC and MSG_DONTWAIT, and exports access to this socket to modules. Regular read/write behaviour is unchanged. This way, code using raw sockets to inject packets into

Tun device looks similar to a packet socket in that both pass complete frames from/to userspace. This patch fills in enough fields in the socket underlying tun driver to support sendmsg/recvmsg operations, and message flags MSG_TRUNC and MSG_DONTWAIT, and exports access to this socket to modules. Regular read/write behaviour is unchanged. This way, code using raw sockets to inject packets into

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:38:17PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less > efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer > and consumer. > > This patch tries to address this by: > > - introduce a new mode which will be only enabled with IFF_TX_ARRAY > set and switch from sk_receive_queue to a

Please see the following thread to get some context on this http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=121564433018903&w=2 Basically the issue is that current multi-cast filtering stuff in the TUN/TAP driver is seriously broken. Original patch went in without proper review and ACK. It was broken and confusing to start with and subsequent patches broke it completely. To give you an idea of

Please see the following thread to get some context on this http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=121564433018903&w=2 Basically the issue is that current multi-cast filtering stuff in the TUN/TAP driver is seriously broken. Original patch went in without proper review and ACK. It was broken and confusing to start with and subsequent patches broke it completely. To give you an idea of

We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer and consumer. This patch tries to address this by: - introduce a new mode which will be only enabled with IFF_TX_ARRAY set and switch from sk_receive_queue to a fixed size of skb array with 256 entries in this mode. - introduce a new proto_ops peek_len which was

We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer and consumer. This patch tries to address this by: - introduce a new mode which will be only enabled with IFF_TX_ARRAY set and switch from sk_receive_queue to a fixed size of skb array with 256 entries in this mode. - introduce a new proto_ops peek_len which was

This patch introduces to a new tun/tap specific msg_control: #define TUN_MSG_UBUF 1 #define TUN_MSG_PTR 2 struct tun_msg_ctl { int type; void *ptr; }; This allows us to pass different kinds of msg_control through sendmsg(). The first supported type is ubuf (TUN_MSG_UBUF) which will be used by the existed vhost_net zerocopy code. The second is XDP buff, which allows vhost_net to

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:05:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > This patch introduces to a new tun/tap specific msg_control: > > #define TUN_MSG_UBUF 1 > #define TUN_MSG_PTR 2 > struct tun_msg_ctl { > int type; > void *ptr; > }; > > This allows us to pass different kinds of msg_control through > sendmsg(). The first supported type is ubuf

We used to queue tx packets in sk_receive_queue, this is less efficient since it requires spinlocks to synchronize between producer and consumer. This patch tries to address this by: - switch from sk_receive_queue to a skb_array, and resize it when tx_queue_len was changed. - introduce a new proto_ops peek_len which was used for peeking the skb length. - implement a tun version of peek_len

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

After commit 761876c857cb ("tap: XDP support"), we can actually queueing XDP pointers in the pointer ring, so we should examine the pointer type before freeing the pointer. Fixes: 761876c857cb ("tap: XDP support") Reported-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/net/tun.c | 3 ++-

fre, 27 03 2009 kl. 10:22 +1030, skrev Rusty Russell: > From: Matias Zabaljauregui <zabaljauregui at gmail.com> > > Impact: cleanup > > This patch allow us to use KVM hypercalls Something has broken in relation to this change. I'm not sure it is this change itself or one following, but I get the following error when using lguest: lguest: unhandled trap 6 at 0x418726