On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:52:54AM GMT, Amery Hung wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:40 AM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:25:45PM GMT, Amery Hung wrote: >From: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable >for different bind tables. Future work will introduce a new table for >datagrams to avoid address collisions, and these functions will be used >there. > >Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >--- > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >index acc15e11700c..d571be9cdbf0 100644 >--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >@@ -232,11 +232,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock *vsk) > sock_put(&vsk->sk); > } > >-static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) >+static struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr, >+ struct list_head *bind_table) > { > struct vsock_sock *vsk; > >- list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) { >+ list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) { > if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, &vsk->local_addr)) > return sk_vsock(vsk); > >@@ -249,6 +250,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) > return NULL; > } > >+static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) >+{ >+ return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr)); >+} >+ > static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src, > struct sockaddr_vm *dst) > { >@@ -671,12 +677,18 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work) > > /**** SOCKET OPERATIONS ****/ > >-static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk, >- struct sockaddr_vm *addr) >+static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk, >+ struct sockaddr_vm *addr, >+ struct list_head *bind_table, >+ size_t table_size) > { > static u32 port; > struct sockaddr_vm new_addr; > >+ if (WARN_ONCE(table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE, >+ "table size too small, may cause overflow")) >+ return -EINVAL; >+ I'd add this in another commit. > if (!port) > port = get_random_u32_above(LAST_RESERVED_PORT); > >@@ -692,7 +704,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct >vsock_sock *vsk, > > new_addr.svm_port = port++; > >- if (!__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr)) { >+ if (!vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr, >+ &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])) { Can we add a macro for `&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])` ?Definitely. I will add the following macro: #define vsock_bound_sockets_in_table(bind_table, addr) \ (&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])
yeah.
> found = true; > break; > } >@@ -709,7 +722,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > return -EACCES; > } > >- if (__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr)) >+ if (vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr, >+ &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])) > return -EADDRINUSE; > } > >@@ -721,11 +735,17 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > * by AF_UNIX. > */ > __vsock_remove_bound(vsk); >- __vsock_insert_bound(vsock_bound_sockets(&vsk->local_addr), vsk); >+ __vsock_insert_bound(&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(&vsk->local_addr)], vsk); > > return 0; > } > >+static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk, >+ struct sockaddr_vm *addr) >+{ >+ return vsock_bind_common(vsk, addr, vsock_bind_table, VSOCK_HASH_SIZE + 1); What about using ARRAY_SIZE(x) ? BTW we are using that size just to check it, but all the arrays we use are statically allocated, so what about a compile time check like BUILD_BUG_ON()?I will remove the table_size check you mentioned earlier and the argument here as the arrays are allocated statically like you mentioned. If you think this check may be a good addition, I can add a BUILD_BUG_ON() in the new vsock_bound_sockets_in_table() macro.
If you want to add it, we need to do it in a separate commit. But since we already have so many changes and both arrays are statically allocated in the same file, IMHO we can avoid the check.
Stefano
