io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() with MSG_WAITALL

io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() with MSG_WAITALL

Without that it's not safe to use them in a linked combination with
others.

Now combinations like IORING_OP_SENDMSG followed by IORING_OP_SPLICE
should be possible.

We already handle short reads and writes for the following opcodes:

- IORING_OP_READV
- IORING_OP_READ_FIXED
- IORING_OP_READ
- IORING_OP_WRITEV
- IORING_OP_WRITE_FIXED
- IORING_OP_WRITE
- IORING_OP_SPLICE
- IORING_OP_TEE

Now we have it for these as well:

- IORING_OP_SENDMSG
- IORING_OP_SEND
- IORING_OP_RECVMSG
- IORING_OP_RECV

For IORING_OP_RECVMSG we also check for the MSG_TRUNC and MSG_CTRUNC
flags in order to call req_set_fail_links().

There might be applications arround depending on the behavior
that even short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() retuns continue an
IOSQE_IO_LINK chain.

It's very unlikely that such applications pass in MSG_WAITALL,
which is only defined in 'man 2 recvmsg', but not in 'man 2 sendmsg'.

It's expected that the low level sock_sendmsg() call just ignores
MSG_WAITALL, as MSG_ZEROCOPY is also ignored without explicitly set
SO_ZEROCOPY.

We also expect the caller to know about the implicit truncation to
MAX_RW_COUNT, which we don't detect.

cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c4e1a4cc0d905314f4d5dc567e65a7b09621aab3.1615908477.git.metze@samba.org
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>