On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:36:13PM +0000, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > 2025/3/20 07:02, "Cong Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 05:22:54PM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > The sk->sk_socket is not locked or referenced, and during the call to > > > > > > > Hm? We should have a reference in socket map, whether directly or > > > > indirectly, right? When we add a socket to a socket map, we do call > > > > sock_map_psock_get_checked() to obtain a reference. > > > > Yes, but we remove psock from sockmap when sock_map_close() was called > ''' > sock_map_close > lock_sock(sk); > rcu_read_lock(); > psock = sk_psock(sk); > // here we remove psock and the reference of psock become 0 > sock_map_remove_links(sk, psock) sk_psock_drop() also calls cancel_delayed_work_sync(&psock->work), althrough in yet another work. Is this also a contribution to this bug? > psock = sk_psock_get(sk); > if (unlikely(!psock)) > goto no_psock; <=== jmp to no_psock > rcu_read_unlock(); > release_sock(sk); > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&psock->work); <== no chance to run cancel > ''' > I have to say sock_map_close() becomes harder and harder to understand now. And I am feeling we may have more bugs since we have two flying work's here: psock->rwork and psock->work. Thanks.
