Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] io: Add zerocopy and errqueue

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 04:27:04PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:57:33PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 08:02:38AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > MSG_ZEROCOPY is a feature that enables copy avoidance in TCP/UDP socket
> > > send calls. It does so by avoiding copying user data into kernel buffers.
> > > 
> > > To make it work, three steps are needed:
> > > 1 - A setsockopt() system call, enabling SO_ZEROCOPY
> > > 2 - Passing down the MSG_ZEROCOPY flag for each send*() syscall
> > > 3 - Process the socket's error queue, dealing with any error
> > 
> > AFAICT, this is missing the single most critical aspect of MSG_ZEROCOPY.
> > 
> > It is non-obvious, but setting the MSG_ZEROCOPY flag turns sendmsg()
> > from a synchronous call to an asynchronous call.
> > 
> > It is forbidden to overwrite/reuse/free the buffer passed to sendmsg
> > until an asynchronous completion notification has been received from
> > the socket error queue. These notifications are not required to
> > arrive in-order, even for a TCP stream, because the kernel hangs on
> > to the buffer if a re-transmit is needed.
> > 
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.4/networking/msg_zerocopy.html
> > 
> >   "Page pinning also changes system call semantics. It temporarily 
> >    shares the buffer between process and network stack. Unlike with
> >    copying, the process cannot immediately overwrite the buffer 
> >    after system call return without possibly modifying the data in 
> >    flight. Kernel integrity is not affected, but a buggy program
> >    can possibly corrupt its own data stream."
> > 
> > AFAICT, the design added in this patch does not provide any way
> > to honour these requirements around buffer lifetime.
> > 
> > I can't see how we can introduce MSG_ZEROCOPY in any seemless
> > way. The buffer lifetime requirements imply need for an API
> > design that is fundamentally different for asynchronous usage,
> > with a callback to notify when the write has finished/failed.
> 
> Regarding buffer reuse - it indeed has a very deep implication on the buffer
> being available and it's not obvious at all.  Just to mention that the initial
> user of this work will make sure all zero copy buffers will be guest pages 
> only
> (as it's only used in multi-fd), so they should always be there during the
> process.

That is not the case when migration is using TLS, because the buffers
transmitted are the ciphertext buffer, not the plaintext guest page.

> In short, we may just want to at least having a way to make sure all zero
> copied buffers are finished using and they're sent after some function returns
> (e.g., qio_channel_flush()).  That may require us to do some accounting on 
> when
> we called sendmsg(MSG_ZEROCOPY), meanwhile we should need to read out the
> ee_data field within SO_EE_ORIGIN_ZEROCOPY msg when we do recvmsg() for the
> error queue and keep those information somewhere too.
> 
> Some other side notes that reached my mind..
> 
> The qio_channel_writev_full() may not be suitable for async operations, as the
> name "full" implies synchronous to me.  So maybe we can add a new helper for
> zero copy on the channel?

All the APIs that exist today are fundamentally only suitable for sync
operations. Supporting async correctly will definitely a brand new APIs
separate from what exists today.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|