Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:47:16 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:34:17 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > > + if (sk->sk_prot->unhash) > > > > > > > + sk->sk_prot->unhash(sk); > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + ctx = tls_get_ctx(sk); > > > > > > > + if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW || ctx->rx_conf == TLS_SW) > > > > > > > + tls_sk_proto_cleanup(sk, ctx, timeo); > > > > > > Do we still need to hook into unhash? With patch 6 in place perhaps we > > > can just do disconnect 🥺 > > > > ?? "can just do a disconnect", not sure I folow. We still need unhash > > in cases where we have a TLS socket transition from ESTABLISHED > > to LISTEN state without calling close(). This is independent of if > > sockmap is running or not. > > > > Originally, I thought this would be extremely rare but I did see it > > in real applications on the sockmap side so presumably it is possible > > here as well. > > Ugh, sorry, I meant shutdown. Instead of replacing the unhash callback > replace the shutdown callback. We probably shouldn't release the socket > lock either there, but we can sleep, so I'll be able to run the device > connection remove callback (which sleep). > ah OK seems doable to me. Do you want to write that on top of this series? Or would you like to push it onto your branch and I can pull it in push the rest of the patches on top and send it out? I think if you can get to it in the next few days then it makes sense to wait. I can't test the hardware side so probably makes more sense for you to do it if you can. > > > cleanup is going to kick off TX but also: > > > > > > if (unlikely(sk->sk_write_pending) && > > > !wait_on_pending_writer(sk, &timeo)) > > > tls_handle_open_record(sk, 0); > > > > > > Are we guaranteed that sk_write_pending is 0? Otherwise > > > wait_on_pending_writer is hiding yet another release_sock() :( > > > > Not seeing the path to release_sock() at the moment? > > > > tls_handle_open_record > > push_pending_record > > tls_sw_push_pending_record > > bpf_exec_tx_verdict > > wait_on_pending_writer > sk_wait_event > release_sock > ah OK. I'll check on sk_write_pending... > > If bpf_exec_tx_verdict does a redirect we could hit a relase but that > > is another fix I have to get queued up shortly. I think we can fix > > that in another series. > > Ugh.
