Re: [PATCH v1 10/40] j1939: socket: make sure all sessions are finished on close

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Robin,

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:47:33PM +0100, Robin van der Gracht wrote:
> Hi Oleksij,
> 
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 11:57:35 +0100
> Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Robin,
> > 
> > On 08.01.19 11:26, Robin van der Gracht wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:31:27 +0100
> > > Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > >> Currently, (E)TP transfers will be aborted, as soon application will
> > >> call close() or exit, as the socket will be automatically closed by the
> > >> kernel.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >>   net/can/j1939/socket.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > >>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/net/can/j1939/socket.c b/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> > >> index d6332483350f..e003d3cae24c 100644
> > >> --- a/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> > >> +++ b/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> > >> @@ -101,6 +101,13 @@ static inline void j1939_sock_pending_add(struct sock *sk)
> > >>   	atomic_inc(&jsk->skb_pending);
> > >>   }
> > >>   
> > >> +static int j1939_sock_pending_get(struct sock *sk)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	struct j1939_sock *jsk = j1939_sk(sk);
> > >> +
> > >> +	return atomic_read(&jsk->skb_pending);
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >>   void j1939_sock_pending_del(struct sock *sk)
> > >>   {
> > >>   	struct j1939_sock *jsk = j1939_sk(sk);
> > >> @@ -404,6 +411,9 @@ static int j1939_sk_release(struct socket *sock)
> > >>   	if (jsk->state & J1939_SOCK_BOUND) {
> > >>   		struct net_device *ndev;
> > >>   
> > >> +		wait_event_interruptible(jsk->waitq,
> > >> +					 j1939_sock_pending_get(&jsk->sk) == 0);
> > >> +
> > >>   		spin_lock_bh(&j1939_socks_lock);
> > >>   		list_del_init(&jsk->list);
> > >>   		spin_unlock_bh(&j1939_socks_lock);  
> > > 
> > > close() now blocks if data was successfully send on that socket.
> > > This is probably due to a resource issue which is now brought to light.
> > > 
> > > Seems as if jsk->skb_pending is incremented on every j1939_sk_sendmsg()
> > > call, but only decremented when an error occurs. So when a send()
> > > succeeds, close() will block indefinitely.  
> > 
> > 
> > It is decremented in:
> >   static void __j1939_session_drop(struct j1939_session *session)
> >   {
> >          struct j1939_priv *priv = session->priv;
> > -       struct sk_buff *se_skb = j1939_session_skb_find(session);
> > 
> > -       if (session->transmission) {
> > -               if (se_skb && se_skb->sk)
> > -                       j1939_sock_pending_del(se_skb->sk);
> > -               wake_up_all(&priv->tp_wait);
> > -       }
> > +       if (!session->transmission)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       j1939_sock_pending_del(session->sk);
> > +       wake_up_all(&priv->tp_wait);
> >   }
> > 
> > Is it a theoretical or real issue?
> 
> Real issue. Forgot to mention that I'm not using a transport session.
> 
> Reproducible by opening, binding, sending 8 bytes and than closing a
> socket. close() will block.
> 
> static int j1939_sk_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
> 			    size_t size)
> {
> 	...
> 
> 	if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_SYN) {
> 		if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) {
> 			ret = j1939_sock_pending_add_first(&jsk->sk);
> 			if (ret > 0)
> 				ret = -EAGAIN;
> 		} else {
> 			ret = wait_event_interruptible(jsk->waitq,
> 						       j1939_sock_pending_add_first(&jsk->sk));
> 		}
> 		if (ret < 0)
> 			goto put_dev;
> 	} else {
> 		j1939_sock_pending_add(&jsk->sk);		<--- incremented regardless of size
> 	}
> 
> 	priv = j1939_priv_get_by_ndev(ndev);
> 	if (!priv)
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 
> 	if (size > 8)
> 		/* re-route via transport protocol */
> 		ret = j1939_sk_send_multi(priv, sk, msg, size);
> 	else
> 		ret = j1939_sk_send_one(priv, sk, msg, size);
> 
> 	j1939_priv_put(priv);
> 	if (ret < 0)
> 		j1939_sock_pending_del(&jsk->sk);		<--- decremented on error only
> 
> 	...
> 
> 
> The jsk->skb_pending counter is also incremented for regular (non
> transport) sends.

Good point!
I'm still on other project. Do you wont to provide a patch?
Probably j1939_sock_pending_del() should be handled in
j1939_sk_send_multi() and j1939_sk_send_one().

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



[Index of Archives]     [Automotive Discussions]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [CAN Bus]

  Powered by Linux