On 3/7/25 15:33, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Signal delivered during connect() may result in a disconnect of an already
>> TCP_ESTABLISHED socket. Problem is that such established socket might have
>> been placed in a sockmap before the connection was closed. We end up with a
>> SS_UNCONNECTED vsock in a sockmap. And this, combined with the ability to
>> reassign (unconnected) vsock's transport to NULL, breaks the sockmap
>> contract. As manifested by WARN_ON_ONCE.
>>
>> Ensure the socket does not stay in sockmap.
>>
>> WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 1310 at net/vmw_vsock/vsock_bpf.c:90 vsock_bpf_recvmsg+0xb4b/0xdf0
>> CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 1310 Comm: a.out Tainted: G W 6.14.0-rc4+
>> sock_recvmsg+0x1b2/0x220
>> __sys_recvfrom+0x190/0x270
>> __x64_sys_recvfrom+0xdc/0x1b0
>> do_syscall_64+0x93/0x1b0
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>>
>> Fixes: 634f1a7110b4 ("vsock: support sockmap")
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 +++++++++-
>> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_bpf.c | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> I can't see this patch on the virtualization ML, are you using
> get_maintainer.pl?
My bad, sorry. In fact, what's the acceptable strategy for bouncing addresses?
> BTW the patch LGTM, thanks for the fix!
>
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
One question for BPF maintainers: sock_map_unhash() does _not_ call
`sk_psock_stop(psock)` nor `cancel_delayed_work_sync(&psock->work)`. Is
this intended?
