Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk,
> > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > >> err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > >> - if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > >> - match->type == type &&
> > > > > >> + if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > >> match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > >> match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > >
> > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test
> > that
> > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind"
> > would be
> > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound
> > device".
> > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add
> > such
> > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the
> > logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any preferences?
> > > >
> > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > > >
> > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
> > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > >
> > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
> > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > >
> > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do you
> > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something" happens
> > ???
> >
> > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
> >
> > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-zero
> > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In that
> > case
> > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or
> > does
> > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > sockets?
> >
> > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
>
> I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that socket
> becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
>
> >
> > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
> > be fairly useless.
>
> Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket that
> will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)
Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
This will break existing users.
Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.
> I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
> Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing match.
> There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
> put them in the same fanout group.
> If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.
>
> > The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
> > to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> >
> > I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
> > Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> > when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
> > whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> >
> > > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> > > to device id or 0?
> > >
> > > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> > > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > > suggestions?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
