From nobody Sat Sep 11 14:28:11 2021
X-Original-To: hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
	by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AEF17A4E7A;
	Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256
	 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256)
	(Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK))
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4H6FTT1Kqmz3Ltj;
	Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [195.64.148.76])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	(Authenticated sender: avg/mail)
	by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91010E717;
	Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>
Cc: "net@FreeBSD.org" <net@freebsd.org>, hackers@freebsd.org
References: <500a2272-c1b3-3f97-0096-9fe8117c4b95@FreeBSD.org>
 <6f455869-cbdd-ee20-f2f8-f633e22071e9@FreeBSD.org> <YTuznrhho4qGXqu8@nuc>
 <cdd2328e-e6aa-f0fc-a77a-adae03759f18@FreeBSD.org>
 <4a2165c5-b97b-8fb7-9ada-0acae3197824@FreeBSD.org>
 <b309f8a5-c550-905b-4340-0b7005ea6fe3@FreeBSD.org> <YTy5kRl0kDl495Po@nuc>
 <fcf10f8a-1672-4a21-c64b-55044cac81c5@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: recvmsg() "short receive" after FIONREAD
Message-ID: <4499e2b0-d1e7-5bee-519c-783fb930fc06@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 17:28:11 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.14.0
List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers+help@freebsd.org>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:freebsd-hackers+subscribe@freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:freebsd-hackers+unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fcf10f8a-1672-4a21-c64b-55044cac81c5@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N

On 11/09/2021 17:16, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 11/09/2021 17:13, Mark Johnston wrote:
>> I think the semantic change is ok.  Did you change FIONREAD to lock the
>> sockbuf?  I think it would be necessary to avoid races with pulseaudio:
>> sb_acc is modified before sb_ctl, so there could be windows where
>> sbavail(sb) - sb->sb_ctl gives a larger.
>>
>> And, it is not really safe to lock the sockbuf itself, since it may be
>> overwritten by a listen(2) call.  SOCK_RECVBUF_LOCK(so) should be used
>> instead.
> 
> I didn't think about the locking, so I didn't add it.
> My current patch is trivial:
> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ soo_ioctl(struct file *fp, u_long cmd, void *data, struct 
> ucred *active_cred,
>                  if (SOLISTENING(so)) {
>                          error = EINVAL;
>                  } else {
> -                       *(int *)data = sbavail(&so->so_rcv);
> +                       *(int *)data = sbavail(&so->so_rcv) - so->so_rcv.sb_ctl;
>                  }
>                  break;
> 
> Let me try adding the lock.

By the way, soo_stat() seems to be another good example to follow.


-- 
Andriy Gapon