Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:33:58 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:15:18 +0000, John Fastabend wrote: > > > > @@ -352,15 +354,18 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout) > > > > if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_BASE && ctx->rx_conf == TLS_BASE) > > > > goto skip_tx_cleanup; > > > > > > > > - sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto; > > > > tls_sk_proto_cleanup(sk, ctx, timeo); > > > > > > > > skip_tx_cleanup: > > > > + write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock); > > > > + icsk->icsk_ulp_data = NULL; > > > > > > Is ulp_data pointer now supposed to be updated under the > > > sk_callback_lock? > > > > Yes otherwise it can race with tls_update(). I didn't remove the > > ulp pointer null set from tcp_ulp.c though. Could be done in this > > patch or as a follow up. > > Do we need to hold the lock in unhash, too, or is unhash called with > sk_callback_lock held? > We should hold the lock here. Also we should reset sk_prot similar to other paths in case we get here without a close() call. syzbot hasn't found that path yet but I'll add some tests for it. write_lock_bh(...) icsk_ulp_data = NULL sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto; write_unlock_bh(...) Thanks
