OpenCloudOS-Kernel/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c

1114 lines
32 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* Copyright (c) 2003-2007 Network Appliance, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* This software is available to you under a choice of one of two
* licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU
* General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file
* COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the BSD-type
* license below:
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
*
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
* copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
* disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
* with the distribution.
*
* Neither the name of the Network Appliance, Inc. nor the names of
* its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written
* permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
* A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
* OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
* SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
* DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
* THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/
/*
* rpc_rdma.c
*
* This file contains the guts of the RPC RDMA protocol, and
* does marshaling/unmarshaling, etc. It is also where interfacing
* to the Linux RPC framework lives.
*/
#include "xprt_rdma.h"
#include <linux/highmem.h>
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
# define RPCDBG_FACILITY RPCDBG_TRANS
#endif
enum rpcrdma_chunktype {
rpcrdma_noch = 0,
rpcrdma_readch,
rpcrdma_areadch,
rpcrdma_writech,
rpcrdma_replych
};
static const char transfertypes[][12] = {
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
"inline", /* no chunks */
"read list", /* some argument via rdma read */
"*read list", /* entire request via rdma read */
"write list", /* some result via rdma write */
"reply chunk" /* entire reply via rdma write */
};
/* Returns size of largest RPC-over-RDMA header in a Call message
*
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
* The largest Call header contains a full-size Read list and a
* minimal Reply chunk.
*/
static unsigned int rpcrdma_max_call_header_size(unsigned int maxsegs)
{
unsigned int size;
/* Fixed header fields and list discriminators */
size = RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_MIN;
/* Maximum Read list size */
maxsegs += 2; /* segment for head and tail buffers */
size = maxsegs * sizeof(struct rpcrdma_read_chunk);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
/* Minimal Read chunk size */
size += sizeof(__be32); /* segment count */
size += sizeof(struct rpcrdma_segment);
size += sizeof(__be32); /* list discriminator */
dprintk("RPC: %s: max call header size = %u\n",
__func__, size);
return size;
}
/* Returns size of largest RPC-over-RDMA header in a Reply message
*
* There is only one Write list or one Reply chunk per Reply
* message. The larger list is the Write list.
*/
static unsigned int rpcrdma_max_reply_header_size(unsigned int maxsegs)
{
unsigned int size;
/* Fixed header fields and list discriminators */
size = RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_MIN;
/* Maximum Write list size */
maxsegs += 2; /* segment for head and tail buffers */
size = sizeof(__be32); /* segment count */
size += maxsegs * sizeof(struct rpcrdma_segment);
size += sizeof(__be32); /* list discriminator */
dprintk("RPC: %s: max reply header size = %u\n",
__func__, size);
return size;
}
void rpcrdma_set_max_header_sizes(struct rpcrdma_ia *ia,
struct rpcrdma_create_data_internal *cdata,
unsigned int maxsegs)
{
ia->ri_max_inline_write = cdata->inline_wsize -
rpcrdma_max_call_header_size(maxsegs);
ia->ri_max_inline_read = cdata->inline_rsize -
rpcrdma_max_reply_header_size(maxsegs);
}
/* The client can send a request inline as long as the RPCRDMA header
* plus the RPC call fit under the transport's inline limit. If the
* combined call message size exceeds that limit, the client must use
* the read chunk list for this operation.
*/
static bool rpcrdma_args_inline(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt,
struct rpc_rqst *rqst)
{
struct rpcrdma_ia *ia = &r_xprt->rx_ia;
return rqst->rq_snd_buf.len <= ia->ri_max_inline_write;
}
/* The client can't know how large the actual reply will be. Thus it
* plans for the largest possible reply for that particular ULP
* operation. If the maximum combined reply message size exceeds that
* limit, the client must provide a write list or a reply chunk for
* this request.
*/
static bool rpcrdma_results_inline(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt,
struct rpc_rqst *rqst)
{
struct rpcrdma_ia *ia = &r_xprt->rx_ia;
return rqst->rq_rcv_buf.buflen <= ia->ri_max_inline_read;
}
xprtrdma: Fix XDR tail buffer marshalling Currently xprtrdma appends an extra chunk element to the RPC/RDMA read chunk list of each NFSv4 WRITE compound. The extra element contains the final GETATTR operation in the compound. The result is an extra RDMA READ operation to transfer a very short piece of each NFS WRITE compound (typically 16 bytes). This is inefficient. It is also incorrect. The client is sending the trailing GETATTR at the same Position as the preceding WRITE data payload. Whether or not RFC 5667 allows the GETATTR to appear in a read chunk, RFC 5666 requires that these two separate RPC arguments appear at two distinct Positions. It can also be argued that the GETATTR operation is not bulk data, and therefore RFC 5667 forbids its appearance in a read chunk at all. Although RFC 5667 is not precise about when using a read list with NFSv4 COMPOUND is allowed, the intent is that only data arguments not touched by NFS (ie, read and write payloads) are to be sent using RDMA READ or WRITE. The NFS client constructs GETATTR arguments itself, and therefore is required to send the trailing GETATTR operation as additional inline content, not as a data payload. NB: This change is not backwards compatible. Some older servers do not accept inline content following the read list. The Linux NFS server should handle this content correctly as of commit a97c331f9aa9 ("svcrdma: Handle additional inline content"). Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-08-04 01:04:17 +08:00
static int
rpcrdma_tail_pullup(struct xdr_buf *buf)
{
size_t tlen = buf->tail[0].iov_len;
size_t skip = tlen & 3;
/* Do not include the tail if it is only an XDR pad */
if (tlen < 4)
return 0;
/* xdr_write_pages() adds a pad at the beginning of the tail
* if the content in "buf->pages" is unaligned. Force the
* tail's actual content to land at the next XDR position
* after the head instead.
*/
if (skip) {
unsigned char *src, *dst;
unsigned int count;
src = buf->tail[0].iov_base;
dst = buf->head[0].iov_base;
dst += buf->head[0].iov_len;
src += skip;
tlen -= skip;
dprintk("RPC: %s: skip=%zu, memmove(%p, %p, %zu)\n",
__func__, skip, dst, src, tlen);
for (count = tlen; count; count--)
*dst++ = *src++;
}
return tlen;
}
xprtrdma: Segment head and tail XDR buffers on page boundaries A single memory allocation is used for the pair of buffers wherein the RPC client builds an RPC call message and decodes its matching reply. These buffers are sized based on the maximum possible size of the RPC call and reply messages for the operation in progress. This means that as the call buffer increases in size, the start of the reply buffer is pushed farther into the memory allocation. RPC requests are growing in size. It used to be that both the call and reply buffers fit inside a single page. But these days, thanks to NFSv4 (and especially security labels in NFSv4.2) the maximum call and reply sizes are large. NFSv4.0 OPEN, for example, now requires a 6KB allocation for a pair of call and reply buffers, and NFSv4 LOOKUP is not far behind. As the maximum size of a call increases, the reply buffer is pushed far enough into the buffer's memory allocation that a page boundary can appear in the middle of it. When the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's RDMA receive buffers (currently 1KB), the client has to register a Reply chunk for the server to RDMA Write the reply into. The logic in rpcrdma_convert_iovs() assumes that xdr_buf head and tail buffers would always be contained on a single page. It supplies just one segment for the head and one for the tail. FMR, for example, registers up to a page boundary (only a portion of the reply buffer in the OPEN case above). But without additional segments, it doesn't register the rest of the buffer. When the server tries to write the OPEN reply, the RDMA Write fails with a remote access error since the client registered only part of the Reply chunk. rpcrdma_convert_iovs() must split the XDR buffer into multiple segments, each of which are guaranteed not to contain a page boundary. That way fmr_op_map is given the proper number of segments to register the whole reply buffer. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@broadcom.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-03-05 00:27:52 +08:00
/* Split "vec" on page boundaries into segments. FMR registers pages,
* not a byte range. Other modes coalesce these segments into a single
* MR when they can.
*/
static int
rpcrdma_convert_kvec(struct kvec *vec, struct rpcrdma_mr_seg *seg, int n)
xprtrdma: Segment head and tail XDR buffers on page boundaries A single memory allocation is used for the pair of buffers wherein the RPC client builds an RPC call message and decodes its matching reply. These buffers are sized based on the maximum possible size of the RPC call and reply messages for the operation in progress. This means that as the call buffer increases in size, the start of the reply buffer is pushed farther into the memory allocation. RPC requests are growing in size. It used to be that both the call and reply buffers fit inside a single page. But these days, thanks to NFSv4 (and especially security labels in NFSv4.2) the maximum call and reply sizes are large. NFSv4.0 OPEN, for example, now requires a 6KB allocation for a pair of call and reply buffers, and NFSv4 LOOKUP is not far behind. As the maximum size of a call increases, the reply buffer is pushed far enough into the buffer's memory allocation that a page boundary can appear in the middle of it. When the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's RDMA receive buffers (currently 1KB), the client has to register a Reply chunk for the server to RDMA Write the reply into. The logic in rpcrdma_convert_iovs() assumes that xdr_buf head and tail buffers would always be contained on a single page. It supplies just one segment for the head and one for the tail. FMR, for example, registers up to a page boundary (only a portion of the reply buffer in the OPEN case above). But without additional segments, it doesn't register the rest of the buffer. When the server tries to write the OPEN reply, the RDMA Write fails with a remote access error since the client registered only part of the Reply chunk. rpcrdma_convert_iovs() must split the XDR buffer into multiple segments, each of which are guaranteed not to contain a page boundary. That way fmr_op_map is given the proper number of segments to register the whole reply buffer. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@broadcom.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-03-05 00:27:52 +08:00
{
size_t page_offset;
u32 remaining;
char *base;
base = vec->iov_base;
page_offset = offset_in_page(base);
remaining = vec->iov_len;
while (remaining && n < RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS) {
xprtrdma: Segment head and tail XDR buffers on page boundaries A single memory allocation is used for the pair of buffers wherein the RPC client builds an RPC call message and decodes its matching reply. These buffers are sized based on the maximum possible size of the RPC call and reply messages for the operation in progress. This means that as the call buffer increases in size, the start of the reply buffer is pushed farther into the memory allocation. RPC requests are growing in size. It used to be that both the call and reply buffers fit inside a single page. But these days, thanks to NFSv4 (and especially security labels in NFSv4.2) the maximum call and reply sizes are large. NFSv4.0 OPEN, for example, now requires a 6KB allocation for a pair of call and reply buffers, and NFSv4 LOOKUP is not far behind. As the maximum size of a call increases, the reply buffer is pushed far enough into the buffer's memory allocation that a page boundary can appear in the middle of it. When the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's RDMA receive buffers (currently 1KB), the client has to register a Reply chunk for the server to RDMA Write the reply into. The logic in rpcrdma_convert_iovs() assumes that xdr_buf head and tail buffers would always be contained on a single page. It supplies just one segment for the head and one for the tail. FMR, for example, registers up to a page boundary (only a portion of the reply buffer in the OPEN case above). But without additional segments, it doesn't register the rest of the buffer. When the server tries to write the OPEN reply, the RDMA Write fails with a remote access error since the client registered only part of the Reply chunk. rpcrdma_convert_iovs() must split the XDR buffer into multiple segments, each of which are guaranteed not to contain a page boundary. That way fmr_op_map is given the proper number of segments to register the whole reply buffer. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@broadcom.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-03-05 00:27:52 +08:00
seg[n].mr_page = NULL;
seg[n].mr_offset = base;
seg[n].mr_len = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE - page_offset, remaining);
remaining -= seg[n].mr_len;
base += seg[n].mr_len;
++n;
page_offset = 0;
}
return n;
}
/*
* Chunk assembly from upper layer xdr_buf.
*
* Prepare the passed-in xdr_buf into representation as RPC/RDMA chunk
* elements. Segments are then coalesced when registered, if possible
* within the selected memreg mode.
*
* Returns positive number of segments converted, or a negative errno.
*/
static int
rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, unsigned int pos,
enum rpcrdma_chunktype type, struct rpcrdma_mr_seg *seg)
{
int len, n, p, page_base;
struct page **ppages;
n = 0;
xprtrdma: Segment head and tail XDR buffers on page boundaries A single memory allocation is used for the pair of buffers wherein the RPC client builds an RPC call message and decodes its matching reply. These buffers are sized based on the maximum possible size of the RPC call and reply messages for the operation in progress. This means that as the call buffer increases in size, the start of the reply buffer is pushed farther into the memory allocation. RPC requests are growing in size. It used to be that both the call and reply buffers fit inside a single page. But these days, thanks to NFSv4 (and especially security labels in NFSv4.2) the maximum call and reply sizes are large. NFSv4.0 OPEN, for example, now requires a 6KB allocation for a pair of call and reply buffers, and NFSv4 LOOKUP is not far behind. As the maximum size of a call increases, the reply buffer is pushed far enough into the buffer's memory allocation that a page boundary can appear in the middle of it. When the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's RDMA receive buffers (currently 1KB), the client has to register a Reply chunk for the server to RDMA Write the reply into. The logic in rpcrdma_convert_iovs() assumes that xdr_buf head and tail buffers would always be contained on a single page. It supplies just one segment for the head and one for the tail. FMR, for example, registers up to a page boundary (only a portion of the reply buffer in the OPEN case above). But without additional segments, it doesn't register the rest of the buffer. When the server tries to write the OPEN reply, the RDMA Write fails with a remote access error since the client registered only part of the Reply chunk. rpcrdma_convert_iovs() must split the XDR buffer into multiple segments, each of which are guaranteed not to contain a page boundary. That way fmr_op_map is given the proper number of segments to register the whole reply buffer. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@broadcom.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-03-05 00:27:52 +08:00
if (pos == 0) {
n = rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->head[0], seg, n);
if (n == RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)
goto out_overflow;
}
len = xdrbuf->page_len;
ppages = xdrbuf->pages + (xdrbuf->page_base >> PAGE_SHIFT);
page_base = xdrbuf->page_base & ~PAGE_MASK;
p = 0;
while (len && n < RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS) {
if (!ppages[p]) {
/* alloc the pagelist for receiving buffer */
ppages[p] = alloc_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!ppages[p])
return -EAGAIN;
}
seg[n].mr_page = ppages[p];
seg[n].mr_offset = (void *)(unsigned long) page_base;
seg[n].mr_len = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE - page_base, len);
if (seg[n].mr_len > PAGE_SIZE)
goto out_overflow;
len -= seg[n].mr_len;
++n;
++p;
page_base = 0; /* page offset only applies to first page */
}
/* Message overflows the seg array */
if (len && n == RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)
goto out_overflow;
xprtrdma: Fix XDR tail buffer marshalling Currently xprtrdma appends an extra chunk element to the RPC/RDMA read chunk list of each NFSv4 WRITE compound. The extra element contains the final GETATTR operation in the compound. The result is an extra RDMA READ operation to transfer a very short piece of each NFS WRITE compound (typically 16 bytes). This is inefficient. It is also incorrect. The client is sending the trailing GETATTR at the same Position as the preceding WRITE data payload. Whether or not RFC 5667 allows the GETATTR to appear in a read chunk, RFC 5666 requires that these two separate RPC arguments appear at two distinct Positions. It can also be argued that the GETATTR operation is not bulk data, and therefore RFC 5667 forbids its appearance in a read chunk at all. Although RFC 5667 is not precise about when using a read list with NFSv4 COMPOUND is allowed, the intent is that only data arguments not touched by NFS (ie, read and write payloads) are to be sent using RDMA READ or WRITE. The NFS client constructs GETATTR arguments itself, and therefore is required to send the trailing GETATTR operation as additional inline content, not as a data payload. NB: This change is not backwards compatible. Some older servers do not accept inline content following the read list. The Linux NFS server should handle this content correctly as of commit a97c331f9aa9 ("svcrdma: Handle additional inline content"). Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-08-04 01:04:17 +08:00
/* When encoding the read list, the tail is always sent inline */
if (type == rpcrdma_readch)
return n;
if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) {
/* the rpcrdma protocol allows us to omit any trailing
* xdr pad bytes, saving the server an RDMA operation. */
if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len < 4 && xprt_rdma_pad_optimize)
return n;
n = rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, n);
if (n == RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)
goto out_overflow;
}
return n;
out_overflow:
pr_err("rpcrdma: segment array overflow\n");
return -EIO;
}
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
static inline __be32 *
xdr_encode_rdma_segment(__be32 *iptr, struct rpcrdma_mw *mw)
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
{
*iptr++ = cpu_to_be32(mw->mw_handle);
*iptr++ = cpu_to_be32(mw->mw_length);
return xdr_encode_hyper(iptr, mw->mw_offset);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
}
/* XDR-encode the Read list. Supports encoding a list of read
* segments that belong to a single read chunk.
*
* Encoding key for single-list chunks (HLOO = Handle32 Length32 Offset64):
*
* Read chunklist (a linked list):
* N elements, position P (same P for all chunks of same arg!):
* 1 - PHLOO - 1 - PHLOO - ... - 1 - PHLOO - 0
*
* Returns a pointer to the XDR word in the RDMA header following
* the end of the Read list, or an error pointer.
*/
static __be32 *
rpcrdma_encode_read_list(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt,
struct rpcrdma_req *req, struct rpc_rqst *rqst,
__be32 *iptr, enum rpcrdma_chunktype rtype)
{
struct rpcrdma_mr_seg *seg;
struct rpcrdma_mw *mw;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
unsigned int pos;
int n, nsegs;
if (rtype == rpcrdma_noch) {
*iptr++ = xdr_zero; /* item not present */
return iptr;
}
pos = rqst->rq_snd_buf.head[0].iov_len;
if (rtype == rpcrdma_areadch)
pos = 0;
seg = req->rl_segments;
nsegs = rpcrdma_convert_iovs(&rqst->rq_snd_buf, pos, rtype, seg);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
if (nsegs < 0)
return ERR_PTR(nsegs);
do {
n = r_xprt->rx_ia.ri_ops->ro_map(r_xprt, seg, nsegs,
false, &mw);
if (n < 0)
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
return ERR_PTR(n);
list_add(&mw->mw_list, &req->rl_registered);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
*iptr++ = xdr_one; /* item present */
/* All read segments in this chunk
* have the same "position".
*/
*iptr++ = cpu_to_be32(pos);
iptr = xdr_encode_rdma_segment(iptr, mw);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: pos %u %u@0x%016llx:0x%08x (%s)\n",
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
rqst->rq_task->tk_pid, __func__, pos,
mw->mw_length, (unsigned long long)mw->mw_offset,
mw->mw_handle, n < nsegs ? "more" : "last");
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
r_xprt->rx_stats.read_chunk_count++;
seg += n;
nsegs -= n;
} while (nsegs);
/* Finish Read list */
*iptr++ = xdr_zero; /* Next item not present */
return iptr;
}
/* XDR-encode the Write list. Supports encoding a list containing
* one array of plain segments that belong to a single write chunk.
*
* Encoding key for single-list chunks (HLOO = Handle32 Length32 Offset64):
*
* Write chunklist (a list of (one) counted array):
* N elements:
* 1 - N - HLOO - HLOO - ... - HLOO - 0
*
* Returns a pointer to the XDR word in the RDMA header following
* the end of the Write list, or an error pointer.
*/
static __be32 *
rpcrdma_encode_write_list(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct rpcrdma_req *req,
struct rpc_rqst *rqst, __be32 *iptr,
enum rpcrdma_chunktype wtype)
{
struct rpcrdma_mr_seg *seg;
struct rpcrdma_mw *mw;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
int n, nsegs, nchunks;
__be32 *segcount;
if (wtype != rpcrdma_writech) {
*iptr++ = xdr_zero; /* no Write list present */
return iptr;
}
seg = req->rl_segments;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
nsegs = rpcrdma_convert_iovs(&rqst->rq_rcv_buf,
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.head[0].iov_len,
wtype, seg);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
if (nsegs < 0)
return ERR_PTR(nsegs);
*iptr++ = xdr_one; /* Write list present */
segcount = iptr++; /* save location of segment count */
nchunks = 0;
do {
n = r_xprt->rx_ia.ri_ops->ro_map(r_xprt, seg, nsegs,
true, &mw);
if (n < 0)
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
return ERR_PTR(n);
list_add(&mw->mw_list, &req->rl_registered);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
iptr = xdr_encode_rdma_segment(iptr, mw);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: %u@0x016%llx:0x%08x (%s)\n",
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
rqst->rq_task->tk_pid, __func__,
mw->mw_length, (unsigned long long)mw->mw_offset,
mw->mw_handle, n < nsegs ? "more" : "last");
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
r_xprt->rx_stats.write_chunk_count++;
r_xprt->rx_stats.total_rdma_request += seg->mr_len;
nchunks++;
seg += n;
nsegs -= n;
} while (nsegs);
/* Update count of segments in this Write chunk */
*segcount = cpu_to_be32(nchunks);
/* Finish Write list */
*iptr++ = xdr_zero; /* Next item not present */
return iptr;
}
/* XDR-encode the Reply chunk. Supports encoding an array of plain
* segments that belong to a single write (reply) chunk.
*
* Encoding key for single-list chunks (HLOO = Handle32 Length32 Offset64):
*
* Reply chunk (a counted array):
* N elements:
* 1 - N - HLOO - HLOO - ... - HLOO
*
* Returns a pointer to the XDR word in the RDMA header following
* the end of the Reply chunk, or an error pointer.
*/
static __be32 *
rpcrdma_encode_reply_chunk(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt,
struct rpcrdma_req *req, struct rpc_rqst *rqst,
__be32 *iptr, enum rpcrdma_chunktype wtype)
{
struct rpcrdma_mr_seg *seg;
struct rpcrdma_mw *mw;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
int n, nsegs, nchunks;
__be32 *segcount;
if (wtype != rpcrdma_replych) {
*iptr++ = xdr_zero; /* no Reply chunk present */
return iptr;
}
seg = req->rl_segments;
nsegs = rpcrdma_convert_iovs(&rqst->rq_rcv_buf, 0, wtype, seg);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
if (nsegs < 0)
return ERR_PTR(nsegs);
*iptr++ = xdr_one; /* Reply chunk present */
segcount = iptr++; /* save location of segment count */
nchunks = 0;
do {
n = r_xprt->rx_ia.ri_ops->ro_map(r_xprt, seg, nsegs,
true, &mw);
if (n < 0)
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
return ERR_PTR(n);
list_add(&mw->mw_list, &req->rl_registered);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
iptr = xdr_encode_rdma_segment(iptr, mw);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: %u@0x%016llx:0x%08x (%s)\n",
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
rqst->rq_task->tk_pid, __func__,
mw->mw_length, (unsigned long long)mw->mw_offset,
mw->mw_handle, n < nsegs ? "more" : "last");
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
r_xprt->rx_stats.reply_chunk_count++;
r_xprt->rx_stats.total_rdma_request += seg->mr_len;
nchunks++;
seg += n;
nsegs -= n;
} while (nsegs);
/* Update count of segments in the Reply chunk */
*segcount = cpu_to_be32(nchunks);
return iptr;
}
/*
* Copy write data inline.
* This function is used for "small" requests. Data which is passed
* to RPC via iovecs (or page list) is copied directly into the
* pre-registered memory buffer for this request. For small amounts
* of data, this is efficient. The cutoff value is tunable.
*/
static void rpcrdma_inline_pullup(struct rpc_rqst *rqst)
{
int i, npages, curlen;
int copy_len;
unsigned char *srcp, *destp;
struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt = rpcx_to_rdmax(rqst->rq_xprt);
int page_base;
struct page **ppages;
destp = rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_base;
curlen = rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_len;
destp += curlen;
dprintk("RPC: %s: destp 0x%p len %d hdrlen %d\n",
__func__, destp, rqst->rq_slen, curlen);
copy_len = rqst->rq_snd_buf.page_len;
if (rqst->rq_snd_buf.tail[0].iov_len) {
curlen = rqst->rq_snd_buf.tail[0].iov_len;
if (destp + copy_len != rqst->rq_snd_buf.tail[0].iov_base) {
memmove(destp + copy_len,
rqst->rq_snd_buf.tail[0].iov_base, curlen);
r_xprt->rx_stats.pullup_copy_count += curlen;
}
dprintk("RPC: %s: tail destp 0x%p len %d\n",
__func__, destp + copy_len, curlen);
rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_len += curlen;
}
r_xprt->rx_stats.pullup_copy_count += copy_len;
page_base = rqst->rq_snd_buf.page_base;
ppages = rqst->rq_snd_buf.pages + (page_base >> PAGE_SHIFT);
page_base &= ~PAGE_MASK;
npages = PAGE_ALIGN(page_base+copy_len) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
for (i = 0; copy_len && i < npages; i++) {
curlen = PAGE_SIZE - page_base;
if (curlen > copy_len)
curlen = copy_len;
dprintk("RPC: %s: page %d destp 0x%p len %d curlen %d\n",
__func__, i, destp, copy_len, curlen);
srcp = kmap_atomic(ppages[i]);
memcpy(destp, srcp+page_base, curlen);
kunmap_atomic(srcp);
rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_len += curlen;
destp += curlen;
copy_len -= curlen;
page_base = 0;
}
/* header now contains entire send message */
}
/*
* Marshal a request: the primary job of this routine is to choose
* the transfer modes. See comments below.
*
* Prepares up to two IOVs per Call message:
*
* [0] -- RPC RDMA header
* [1] -- the RPC header/data
*
* Returns zero on success, otherwise a negative errno.
*/
int
rpcrdma_marshal_req(struct rpc_rqst *rqst)
{
struct rpc_xprt *xprt = rqst->rq_xprt;
struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt = rpcx_to_rdmax(xprt);
struct rpcrdma_req *req = rpcr_to_rdmar(rqst);
enum rpcrdma_chunktype rtype, wtype;
struct rpcrdma_msg *headerp;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
ssize_t hdrlen;
size_t rpclen;
__be32 *iptr;
#if defined(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL)
if (test_bit(RPC_BC_PA_IN_USE, &rqst->rq_bc_pa_state))
return rpcrdma_bc_marshal_reply(rqst);
#endif
headerp = rdmab_to_msg(req->rl_rdmabuf);
/* don't byte-swap XID, it's already done in request */
headerp->rm_xid = rqst->rq_xid;
headerp->rm_vers = rpcrdma_version;
headerp->rm_credit = cpu_to_be32(r_xprt->rx_buf.rb_max_requests);
headerp->rm_type = rdma_msg;
/*
* Chunks needed for results?
*
* o If the expected result is under the inline threshold, all ops
* return as inline.
* o Large read ops return data as write chunk(s), header as
* inline.
* o Large non-read ops return as a single reply chunk.
*/
if (rpcrdma_results_inline(r_xprt, rqst))
wtype = rpcrdma_noch;
else if (rqst->rq_rcv_buf.flags & XDRBUF_READ)
wtype = rpcrdma_writech;
else
wtype = rpcrdma_replych;
/*
* Chunks needed for arguments?
*
* o If the total request is under the inline threshold, all ops
* are sent as inline.
* o Large write ops transmit data as read chunk(s), header as
* inline.
* o Large non-write ops are sent with the entire message as a
* single read chunk (protocol 0-position special case).
*
* This assumes that the upper layer does not present a request
* that both has a data payload, and whose non-data arguments
* by themselves are larger than the inline threshold.
*/
if (rpcrdma_args_inline(r_xprt, rqst)) {
rtype = rpcrdma_noch;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
rpcrdma_inline_pullup(rqst);
rpclen = rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_len;
} else if (rqst->rq_snd_buf.flags & XDRBUF_WRITE) {
rtype = rpcrdma_readch;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
rpclen = rqst->rq_svec[0].iov_len;
rpclen += rpcrdma_tail_pullup(&rqst->rq_snd_buf);
} else {
r_xprt->rx_stats.nomsg_call_count++;
headerp->rm_type = htonl(RDMA_NOMSG);
rtype = rpcrdma_areadch;
rpclen = 0;
}
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
/* This implementation supports the following combinations
* of chunk lists in one RPC-over-RDMA Call message:
*
* - Read list
* - Write list
* - Reply chunk
* - Read list + Reply chunk
*
* It might not yet support the following combinations:
*
* - Read list + Write list
*
* It does not support the following combinations:
*
* - Write list + Reply chunk
* - Read list + Write list + Reply chunk
*
* This implementation supports only a single chunk in each
* Read or Write list. Thus for example the client cannot
* send a Call message with a Position Zero Read chunk and a
* regular Read chunk at the same time.
*/
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
iptr = headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks;
iptr = rpcrdma_encode_read_list(r_xprt, req, rqst, iptr, rtype);
if (IS_ERR(iptr))
goto out_unmap;
iptr = rpcrdma_encode_write_list(r_xprt, req, rqst, iptr, wtype);
if (IS_ERR(iptr))
goto out_unmap;
iptr = rpcrdma_encode_reply_chunk(r_xprt, req, rqst, iptr, wtype);
if (IS_ERR(iptr))
goto out_unmap;
hdrlen = (unsigned char *)iptr - (unsigned char *)headerp;
if (hdrlen + rpclen > RPCRDMA_INLINE_WRITE_THRESHOLD(rqst))
goto out_overflow;
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: %s/%s: hdrlen %zd rpclen %zd\n",
rqst->rq_task->tk_pid, __func__,
transfertypes[rtype], transfertypes[wtype],
hdrlen, rpclen);
req->rl_send_iov[0].addr = rdmab_addr(req->rl_rdmabuf);
req->rl_send_iov[0].length = hdrlen;
req->rl_send_iov[0].lkey = rdmab_lkey(req->rl_rdmabuf);
req->rl_niovs = 1;
if (rtype == rpcrdma_areadch)
return 0;
xprtrdma: Allocate RPC send buffer separately from struct rpcrdma_req Because internal memory registration is an expensive and synchronous operation, xprtrdma pre-registers send and receive buffers at mount time, and then re-uses them for each RPC. A "hardway" allocation is a memory allocation and registration that replaces a send buffer during the processing of an RPC. Hardway must be done if the RPC send buffer is too small to accommodate an RPC's call and reply headers. For xprtrdma, each RPC send buffer is currently part of struct rpcrdma_req so that xprt_rdma_free(), which is passed nothing but the address of an RPC send buffer, can find its matching struct rpcrdma_req and rpcrdma_rep quickly via container_of / offsetof. That means that hardway currently has to replace a whole rpcrmda_req when it replaces an RPC send buffer. This is often a fairly hefty chunk of contiguous memory due to the size of the rl_segments array and the fact that both the send and receive buffers are part of struct rpcrdma_req. Some obscure re-use of fields in rpcrdma_req is done so that xprt_rdma_free() can detect replaced rpcrdma_req structs, and restore the original. This commit breaks apart the RPC send buffer and struct rpcrdma_req so that increasing the size of the rl_segments array does not change the alignment of each RPC send buffer. (Increasing rl_segments is needed to bump up the maximum r/wsize for NFS/RDMA). This change opens up some interesting possibilities for improving the design of xprt_rdma_allocate(). xprt_rdma_allocate() is now the one place where RPC send buffers are allocated or re-allocated, and they are now always left in place by xprt_rdma_free(). A large re-allocation that includes both the rl_segments array and the RPC send buffer is no longer needed. Send buffer re-allocation becomes quite rare. Good send buffer alignment is guaranteed no matter what the size of the rl_segments array is. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-01-22 00:04:08 +08:00
req->rl_send_iov[1].addr = rdmab_addr(req->rl_sendbuf);
req->rl_send_iov[1].length = rpclen;
xprtrdma: Allocate RPC send buffer separately from struct rpcrdma_req Because internal memory registration is an expensive and synchronous operation, xprtrdma pre-registers send and receive buffers at mount time, and then re-uses them for each RPC. A "hardway" allocation is a memory allocation and registration that replaces a send buffer during the processing of an RPC. Hardway must be done if the RPC send buffer is too small to accommodate an RPC's call and reply headers. For xprtrdma, each RPC send buffer is currently part of struct rpcrdma_req so that xprt_rdma_free(), which is passed nothing but the address of an RPC send buffer, can find its matching struct rpcrdma_req and rpcrdma_rep quickly via container_of / offsetof. That means that hardway currently has to replace a whole rpcrmda_req when it replaces an RPC send buffer. This is often a fairly hefty chunk of contiguous memory due to the size of the rl_segments array and the fact that both the send and receive buffers are part of struct rpcrdma_req. Some obscure re-use of fields in rpcrdma_req is done so that xprt_rdma_free() can detect replaced rpcrdma_req structs, and restore the original. This commit breaks apart the RPC send buffer and struct rpcrdma_req so that increasing the size of the rl_segments array does not change the alignment of each RPC send buffer. (Increasing rl_segments is needed to bump up the maximum r/wsize for NFS/RDMA). This change opens up some interesting possibilities for improving the design of xprt_rdma_allocate(). xprt_rdma_allocate() is now the one place where RPC send buffers are allocated or re-allocated, and they are now always left in place by xprt_rdma_free(). A large re-allocation that includes both the rl_segments array and the RPC send buffer is no longer needed. Send buffer re-allocation becomes quite rare. Good send buffer alignment is guaranteed no matter what the size of the rl_segments array is. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-01-22 00:04:08 +08:00
req->rl_send_iov[1].lkey = rdmab_lkey(req->rl_sendbuf);
req->rl_niovs = 2;
return 0;
out_overflow:
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
pr_err("rpcrdma: send overflow: hdrlen %zd rpclen %zu %s/%s\n",
hdrlen, rpclen, transfertypes[rtype], transfertypes[wtype]);
iptr = ERR_PTR(-EIO);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
out_unmap:
r_xprt->rx_ia.ri_ops->ro_unmap_safe(r_xprt, req, false);
xprtrdma: Allow Read list and Reply chunk simultaneously rpcrdma_marshal_req() makes a simplifying assumption: that NFS operations with large Call messages have small Reply messages, and vice versa. Therefore with RPC-over-RDMA, only one chunk type is ever needed for each Call/Reply pair, because one direction needs chunks, the other direction will always fit inline. In fact, this assumption is asserted in the code: if (rtype != rpcrdma_noch && wtype != rpcrdma_noch) { dprintk("RPC: %s: cannot marshal multiple chunk lists\n", __func__); return -EIO; } But RPCGSS_SEC breaks this assumption. Because krb5i and krb5p perform data transformation on RPC messages before they are transmitted, direct data placement techniques cannot be used, thus RPC messages must be sent via a Long call in both directions. All such calls are sent with a Position Zero Read chunk, and all such replies are handled with a Reply chunk. Thus the client must provide every Call/Reply pair with both a Read list and a Reply chunk. Without any special security in effect, NFSv4 WRITEs may now also use the Read list and provide a Reply chunk. The marshal_req logic was preventing that, meaning an NFSv4 WRITE with a large payload that included a GETATTR result larger than the inline threshold would fail. The code that encodes each chunk list is now completely contained in its own function. There is some code duplication, but the trade-off is that the overall logic should be more clear. Note that all three chunk lists now share the rl_segments array. Some additional per-req accounting is necessary to track this usage. For the same reasons that the above simplifying assumption has held true for so long, I don't expect more array elements are needed at this time. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2016-05-03 02:41:30 +08:00
return PTR_ERR(iptr);
}
/*
* Chase down a received write or reply chunklist to get length
* RDMA'd by server. See map at rpcrdma_create_chunks()! :-)
*/
static int
rpcrdma_count_chunks(struct rpcrdma_rep *rep, int wrchunk, __be32 **iptrp)
{
unsigned int i, total_len;
struct rpcrdma_write_chunk *cur_wchunk;
char *base = (char *)rdmab_to_msg(rep->rr_rdmabuf);
i = be32_to_cpu(**iptrp);
cur_wchunk = (struct rpcrdma_write_chunk *) (*iptrp + 1);
total_len = 0;
while (i--) {
struct rpcrdma_segment *seg = &cur_wchunk->wc_target;
ifdebug(FACILITY) {
u64 off;
xdr_decode_hyper((__be32 *)&seg->rs_offset, &off);
dprintk("RPC: %s: chunk %d@0x%llx:0x%x\n",
__func__,
be32_to_cpu(seg->rs_length),
(unsigned long long)off,
be32_to_cpu(seg->rs_handle));
}
total_len += be32_to_cpu(seg->rs_length);
++cur_wchunk;
}
/* check and adjust for properly terminated write chunk */
if (wrchunk) {
__be32 *w = (__be32 *) cur_wchunk;
if (*w++ != xdr_zero)
return -1;
cur_wchunk = (struct rpcrdma_write_chunk *) w;
}
if ((char *)cur_wchunk > base + rep->rr_len)
return -1;
*iptrp = (__be32 *) cur_wchunk;
return total_len;
}
/*
* Scatter inline received data back into provided iov's.
*/
static void
rpcrdma_inline_fixup(struct rpc_rqst *rqst, char *srcp, int copy_len, int pad)
{
int i, npages, curlen, olen;
char *destp;
struct page **ppages;
int page_base;
curlen = rqst->rq_rcv_buf.head[0].iov_len;
if (curlen > copy_len) { /* write chunk header fixup */
curlen = copy_len;
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.head[0].iov_len = curlen;
}
dprintk("RPC: %s: srcp 0x%p len %d hdrlen %d\n",
__func__, srcp, copy_len, curlen);
/* Shift pointer for first receive segment only */
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.head[0].iov_base = srcp;
srcp += curlen;
copy_len -= curlen;
olen = copy_len;
i = 0;
rpcx_to_rdmax(rqst->rq_xprt)->rx_stats.fixup_copy_count += olen;
page_base = rqst->rq_rcv_buf.page_base;
ppages = rqst->rq_rcv_buf.pages + (page_base >> PAGE_SHIFT);
page_base &= ~PAGE_MASK;
if (copy_len && rqst->rq_rcv_buf.page_len) {
npages = PAGE_ALIGN(page_base +
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.page_len) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
for (; i < npages; i++) {
curlen = PAGE_SIZE - page_base;
if (curlen > copy_len)
curlen = copy_len;
dprintk("RPC: %s: page %d"
" srcp 0x%p len %d curlen %d\n",
__func__, i, srcp, copy_len, curlen);
destp = kmap_atomic(ppages[i]);
memcpy(destp + page_base, srcp, curlen);
flush_dcache_page(ppages[i]);
kunmap_atomic(destp);
srcp += curlen;
copy_len -= curlen;
if (copy_len == 0)
break;
page_base = 0;
}
}
if (copy_len && rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len) {
curlen = copy_len;
if (curlen > rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len)
curlen = rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len;
if (rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_base != srcp)
memmove(rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_base, srcp, curlen);
dprintk("RPC: %s: tail srcp 0x%p len %d curlen %d\n",
__func__, srcp, copy_len, curlen);
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len = curlen;
copy_len -= curlen; ++i;
} else
rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len = 0;
if (pad) {
/* implicit padding on terminal chunk */
unsigned char *p = rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_base;
while (pad--)
p[rqst->rq_rcv_buf.tail[0].iov_len++] = 0;
}
if (copy_len)
dprintk("RPC: %s: %d bytes in"
" %d extra segments (%d lost)\n",
__func__, olen, i, copy_len);
/* TBD avoid a warning from call_decode() */
rqst->rq_private_buf = rqst->rq_rcv_buf;
}
void
rpcrdma_connect_worker(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct rpcrdma_ep *ep =
container_of(work, struct rpcrdma_ep, rep_connect_worker.work);
struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt =
container_of(ep, struct rpcrdma_xprt, rx_ep);
struct rpc_xprt *xprt = &r_xprt->rx_xprt;
spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
if (++xprt->connect_cookie == 0) /* maintain a reserved value */
++xprt->connect_cookie;
if (ep->rep_connected > 0) {
if (!xprt_test_and_set_connected(xprt))
xprt_wake_pending_tasks(xprt, 0);
} else {
if (xprt_test_and_clear_connected(xprt))
xprt_wake_pending_tasks(xprt, -ENOTCONN);
}
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
}
#if defined(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL)
/* By convention, backchannel calls arrive via rdma_msg type
* messages, and never populate the chunk lists. This makes
* the RPC/RDMA header small and fixed in size, so it is
* straightforward to check the RPC header's direction field.
*/
static bool
rpcrdma_is_bcall(struct rpcrdma_msg *headerp)
{
__be32 *p = (__be32 *)headerp;
if (headerp->rm_type != rdma_msg)
return false;
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[0] != xdr_zero)
return false;
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[1] != xdr_zero)
return false;
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[2] != xdr_zero)
return false;
/* sanity */
if (p[7] != headerp->rm_xid)
return false;
/* call direction */
if (p[8] != cpu_to_be32(RPC_CALL))
return false;
return true;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL */
/*
* This function is called when an async event is posted to
* the connection which changes the connection state. All it
* does at this point is mark the connection up/down, the rpc
* timers do the rest.
*/
void
rpcrdma_conn_func(struct rpcrdma_ep *ep)
{
schedule_delayed_work(&ep->rep_connect_worker, 0);
}
/* Process received RPC/RDMA messages.
*
* Errors must result in the RPC task either being awakened, or
* allowed to timeout, to discover the errors at that time.
*/
void
rpcrdma_reply_handler(struct rpcrdma_rep *rep)
{
struct rpcrdma_msg *headerp;
struct rpcrdma_req *req;
struct rpc_rqst *rqst;
struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt = rep->rr_rxprt;
struct rpc_xprt *xprt = &r_xprt->rx_xprt;
__be32 *iptr;
int rdmalen, status, rmerr;
unsigned long cwnd;
dprintk("RPC: %s: incoming rep %p\n", __func__, rep);
if (rep->rr_len == RPCRDMA_BAD_LEN)
goto out_badstatus;
if (rep->rr_len < RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_ERR)
goto out_shortreply;
headerp = rdmab_to_msg(rep->rr_rdmabuf);
#if defined(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL)
if (rpcrdma_is_bcall(headerp))
goto out_bcall;
#endif
/* Match incoming rpcrdma_rep to an rpcrdma_req to
* get context for handling any incoming chunks.
*/
spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
rqst = xprt_lookup_rqst(xprt, headerp->rm_xid);
if (!rqst)
goto out_nomatch;
req = rpcr_to_rdmar(rqst);
if (req->rl_reply)
goto out_duplicate;
xprtrdma: Invalidate in the RPC reply handler There is a window between the time the RPC reply handler wakes the waiting RPC task and when xprt_release() invokes ops->buf_free. During this time, memory regions containing the data payload may still be accessed by a broken or malicious server, but the RPC application has already been allowed access to the memory containing the RPC request's data payloads. The server should be fenced from client memory containing RPC data payloads _before_ the RPC application is allowed to continue. This change also more strongly enforces send queue accounting. There is a maximum number of RPC calls allowed to be outstanding. When an RPC/RDMA transport is set up, just enough send queue resources are allocated to handle registration, Send, and invalidation WRs for each those RPCs at the same time. Before, additional RPC calls could be dispatched while invalidation WRs were still consuming send WQEs. When invalidation WRs backed up, dispatching additional RPCs resulted in a send queue overrun. Now, the reply handler prevents RPC dispatch until invalidation is complete. This prevents RPC call dispatch until there are enough send queue resources to proceed. Still to do: If an RPC exits early (say, ^C), the reply handler has no opportunity to perform invalidation. Currently, xprt_rdma_free() still frees remaining RDMA resources, which could deadlock. Additional changes are needed to handle invalidation properly in this case. Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-12-17 06:23:11 +08:00
/* Sanity checking has passed. We are now committed
* to complete this transaction.
*/
list_del_init(&rqst->rq_list);
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
dprintk("RPC: %s: reply %p completes request %p (xid 0x%08x)\n",
__func__, rep, req, be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_xid));
/* from here on, the reply is no longer an orphan */
req->rl_reply = rep;
xprt->reestablish_timeout = 0;
if (headerp->rm_vers != rpcrdma_version)
goto out_badversion;
/* check for expected message types */
/* The order of some of these tests is important. */
switch (headerp->rm_type) {
case rdma_msg:
/* never expect read chunks */
/* never expect reply chunks (two ways to check) */
/* never expect write chunks without having offered RDMA */
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[0] != xdr_zero ||
(headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[1] == xdr_zero &&
headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[2] != xdr_zero) ||
(headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[1] != xdr_zero &&
list_empty(&req->rl_registered)))
goto badheader;
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[1] != xdr_zero) {
/* count any expected write chunks in read reply */
/* start at write chunk array count */
iptr = &headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[2];
rdmalen = rpcrdma_count_chunks(rep, 1, &iptr);
/* check for validity, and no reply chunk after */
if (rdmalen < 0 || *iptr++ != xdr_zero)
goto badheader;
rep->rr_len -=
((unsigned char *)iptr - (unsigned char *)headerp);
status = rep->rr_len + rdmalen;
r_xprt->rx_stats.total_rdma_reply += rdmalen;
/* special case - last chunk may omit padding */
if (rdmalen &= 3) {
rdmalen = 4 - rdmalen;
status += rdmalen;
}
} else {
/* else ordinary inline */
rdmalen = 0;
iptr = (__be32 *)((unsigned char *)headerp +
RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_MIN);
rep->rr_len -= RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_MIN;
status = rep->rr_len;
}
/* Fix up the rpc results for upper layer */
rpcrdma_inline_fixup(rqst, (char *)iptr, rep->rr_len, rdmalen);
break;
case rdma_nomsg:
/* never expect read or write chunks, always reply chunks */
if (headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[0] != xdr_zero ||
headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[1] != xdr_zero ||
headerp->rm_body.rm_chunks[2] != xdr_one ||
list_empty(&req->rl_registered))
goto badheader;
iptr = (__be32 *)((unsigned char *)headerp +
RPCRDMA_HDRLEN_MIN);
rdmalen = rpcrdma_count_chunks(rep, 0, &iptr);
if (rdmalen < 0)
goto badheader;
r_xprt->rx_stats.total_rdma_reply += rdmalen;
/* Reply chunk buffer already is the reply vector - no fixup. */
status = rdmalen;
break;
case rdma_error:
goto out_rdmaerr;
badheader:
default:
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: invalid rpcrdma reply (type %u)\n",
rqst->rq_task->tk_pid, __func__,
be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_type));
status = -EIO;
r_xprt->rx_stats.bad_reply_count++;
break;
}
out:
xprtrdma: Invalidate in the RPC reply handler There is a window between the time the RPC reply handler wakes the waiting RPC task and when xprt_release() invokes ops->buf_free. During this time, memory regions containing the data payload may still be accessed by a broken or malicious server, but the RPC application has already been allowed access to the memory containing the RPC request's data payloads. The server should be fenced from client memory containing RPC data payloads _before_ the RPC application is allowed to continue. This change also more strongly enforces send queue accounting. There is a maximum number of RPC calls allowed to be outstanding. When an RPC/RDMA transport is set up, just enough send queue resources are allocated to handle registration, Send, and invalidation WRs for each those RPCs at the same time. Before, additional RPC calls could be dispatched while invalidation WRs were still consuming send WQEs. When invalidation WRs backed up, dispatching additional RPCs resulted in a send queue overrun. Now, the reply handler prevents RPC dispatch until invalidation is complete. This prevents RPC call dispatch until there are enough send queue resources to proceed. Still to do: If an RPC exits early (say, ^C), the reply handler has no opportunity to perform invalidation. Currently, xprt_rdma_free() still frees remaining RDMA resources, which could deadlock. Additional changes are needed to handle invalidation properly in this case. Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-12-17 06:23:11 +08:00
/* Invalidate and flush the data payloads before waking the
* waiting application. This guarantees the memory region is
* properly fenced from the server before the application
* accesses the data. It also ensures proper send flow
* control: waking the next RPC waits until this RPC has
* relinquished all its Send Queue entries.
*/
if (!list_empty(&req->rl_registered))
xprtrdma: Invalidate in the RPC reply handler There is a window between the time the RPC reply handler wakes the waiting RPC task and when xprt_release() invokes ops->buf_free. During this time, memory regions containing the data payload may still be accessed by a broken or malicious server, but the RPC application has already been allowed access to the memory containing the RPC request's data payloads. The server should be fenced from client memory containing RPC data payloads _before_ the RPC application is allowed to continue. This change also more strongly enforces send queue accounting. There is a maximum number of RPC calls allowed to be outstanding. When an RPC/RDMA transport is set up, just enough send queue resources are allocated to handle registration, Send, and invalidation WRs for each those RPCs at the same time. Before, additional RPC calls could be dispatched while invalidation WRs were still consuming send WQEs. When invalidation WRs backed up, dispatching additional RPCs resulted in a send queue overrun. Now, the reply handler prevents RPC dispatch until invalidation is complete. This prevents RPC call dispatch until there are enough send queue resources to proceed. Still to do: If an RPC exits early (say, ^C), the reply handler has no opportunity to perform invalidation. Currently, xprt_rdma_free() still frees remaining RDMA resources, which could deadlock. Additional changes are needed to handle invalidation properly in this case. Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Tested-by: Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
2015-12-17 06:23:11 +08:00
r_xprt->rx_ia.ri_ops->ro_unmap_sync(r_xprt, req);
spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
cwnd = xprt->cwnd;
xprt->cwnd = atomic_read(&r_xprt->rx_buf.rb_credits) << RPC_CWNDSHIFT;
if (xprt->cwnd > cwnd)
xprt_release_rqst_cong(rqst->rq_task);
xprt_complete_rqst(rqst->rq_task, status);
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
dprintk("RPC: %s: xprt_complete_rqst(0x%p, 0x%p, %d)\n",
__func__, xprt, rqst, status);
return;
out_badstatus:
rpcrdma_recv_buffer_put(rep);
if (r_xprt->rx_ep.rep_connected == 1) {
r_xprt->rx_ep.rep_connected = -EIO;
rpcrdma_conn_func(&r_xprt->rx_ep);
}
return;
#if defined(CONFIG_SUNRPC_BACKCHANNEL)
out_bcall:
rpcrdma_bc_receive_call(r_xprt, rep);
return;
#endif
/* If the incoming reply terminated a pending RPC, the next
* RPC call will post a replacement receive buffer as it is
* being marshaled.
*/
out_badversion:
dprintk("RPC: %s: invalid version %d\n",
__func__, be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_vers));
status = -EIO;
r_xprt->rx_stats.bad_reply_count++;
goto out;
out_rdmaerr:
rmerr = be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_body.rm_error.rm_err);
switch (rmerr) {
case ERR_VERS:
pr_err("%s: server reports header version error (%u-%u)\n",
__func__,
be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_body.rm_error.rm_vers_low),
be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_body.rm_error.rm_vers_high));
break;
case ERR_CHUNK:
pr_err("%s: server reports header decoding error\n",
__func__);
break;
default:
pr_err("%s: server reports unknown error %d\n",
__func__, rmerr);
}
status = -EREMOTEIO;
r_xprt->rx_stats.bad_reply_count++;
goto out;
/* If no pending RPC transaction was matched, post a replacement
* receive buffer before returning.
*/
out_shortreply:
dprintk("RPC: %s: short/invalid reply\n", __func__);
goto repost;
out_nomatch:
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
dprintk("RPC: %s: no match for incoming xid 0x%08x len %d\n",
__func__, be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_xid),
rep->rr_len);
goto repost;
out_duplicate:
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
dprintk("RPC: %s: "
"duplicate reply %p to RPC request %p: xid 0x%08x\n",
__func__, rep, req, be32_to_cpu(headerp->rm_xid));
repost:
r_xprt->rx_stats.bad_reply_count++;
if (rpcrdma_ep_post_recv(&r_xprt->rx_ia, &r_xprt->rx_ep, rep))
rpcrdma_recv_buffer_put(rep);
}