On 3/11/25 14:49, Luigi Leonardi wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:01:11PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> On 3/7/25 15:35, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:58:55AM +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. >>>> >>>> Note that Luigi is currently working on a (vsock test suit) test[1] for a >>>> related bug, which could be neatly adapted to test this bug as well. >>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250306-test_vsock-v1-0-0320b5accf92@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Can you work with Luigi to include the changes in that series? >> >> I was just going to wait for Luigi to finish his work (no rush, really) and >> then try to parametrize it. >> > > Here[1] I pushed the v2 of the series, it addresses Stefano's comments. > I use b4 to send the patches, so one commit looks "strange". It is used > by b4 and it contains the cover letter. > [1]https://github.com/luigix25/linux/tree/test_vsock_v2 > > It would be nice to send both tests together, so whenever your patch is > ready, feel free to open me a PR on github or send the series directly > in the ML :) I've noticed you've already sent it to ML and I agree it's better this way. Perhaps my wording was unclear: by "wait for you to finish" I've meant "wait for you to get your work merged". Sorry for confusion, Michal
