On 2025-03-10 16:00:09, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:42:28AM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> > On 3/7/25 10:27, 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>
> >
> > This fix is insufficient; warning can be triggered another way. Apologies.
>
> No need to apologize, you are doing a great job to improve vsock with bpf!
+1 thanks for working on it! I was out Monday but will catch up with
patches as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
> >
> > maintainer-netdev.rst says author can do that, so:
> > pw-bot: cr
> >
>
>
