On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:05:43PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:58:31AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable > for different bind tables. For use by datagrams in a future patch. > > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > index ef86765f3765..7a3ca4270446 100644 > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > @@ -230,11 +230,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock *vsk) > sock_put(&vsk->sk); > } > > -static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) > +struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr, > + struct list_head *bind_table) > { > struct vsock_sock *vsk; > > - list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) { > + list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) { > if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, &vsk->local_addr)) > return sk_vsock(vsk); > > @@ -247,6 +248,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) > return NULL; > } > > +static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr) > +{ > + return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr)); > +} > + > static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src, > struct sockaddr_vm *dst) > { > @@ -646,12 +652,17 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work) > > /**** SOCKET OPERATIONS ****/ > > -static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > - struct sockaddr_vm *addr) > +static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > + struct sockaddr_vm *addr, > + struct list_head *bind_table, > + size_t table_size) > { > static u32 port; > struct sockaddr_vm new_addr; > > + if (table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE) > + return -1; Why we need this check now?If the table_size is not at least VSOCK_HASH_SIZE then the VSOCK_HASH(addr) used later could overflow the table. Maybe this really deserves a WARN() and a comment?
Yes, please WARN_ONCE() should be enough. Stefano
