Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 7:46 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:00 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect accounting fwd_alloc can result in a warning when the socket
> > > > is torn down,
> > > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > To resolve lets only account for sockets on the ingress queue that are
> > > > still associated with the current socket. On the redirect case we will
> > > > check memory limits per 6fa9201a89898, but will omit fwd_alloc accounting
> > > > until skb is actually enqueued. When the skb is sent via skb_send_sock_locked
> > > > or received with sk_psock_skb_ingress memory will be claimed on psock_other.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > You mean sk_psock_skb_ingress(), right?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> skb_send_sock_locked() actually allocates its own skb when sending, hence
> it uses a different skb for memory accounting.
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > @@ -880,12 +876,13 @@ static void sk_psock_strp_read(struct strparser *strp, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > kfree_skb(skb);
> > > > goto out;
> > > > }
> > > > - skb_set_owner_r(skb, sk);
> > > > prog = READ_ONCE(psock->progs.skb_verdict);
> > > > if (likely(prog)) {
> > > > + skb->sk = psock->sk;
> > >
> > > Why is skb_orphan() not needed here?
> >
> > These come from strparser which do not have skb->sk set.
>
> Hmm, but sk_psock_verdict_recv() passes a clone too, like
> strparser, so either we need it for both, or not at all. Clones
> do not have skb->sk, so I think you can remove the one in
> sk_psock_verdict_recv() too.
Agree skb_orphan can just be removed, I was being overly
paranoid.
Thanks.
