On 26.09.23 11:06, D. Wythe wrote:
>> Considering the const, maybe
>>> we need to do :
>>>
>>> 1. hold a refcnt of smc_sock for syn_recv_sock to keep smc sock valid during life time of clc sock
>>> 2. put the refcnt of smc_sock in sk_destruct in tcp_sock to release the very smc sock .
>>>
>>> In that way, we can always make sure the valid of smc sock during the life time of clc sock. Then we can use READ_ONCE rather
>>> than lock. What do you think ?
>> I am not sure I fully understand the details what you propose to do. And it is not only syn_recv_sock(), right?
>> You need to consider all relations between smc socks and tcp socks; fallback to tcp, initial creation, children of listen sockets, variants of shutdown, ... Preferrably a single simple mechanism covers all situations. Maybe there is such a mechanism already today?
>> (I don't think clcsock->sk->sk_user_data or sk_callback_lock provide this general coverage)
>> If we really have a gap, a general refcnt'ing on smc sock could be a solution, but needs to be designed carefully.
>
> You are right , we need designed it with care, we will try the referenced solutions internally first, and I will also send some RFCs so that everyone can track the latest progress
> and make it can be all agreed.
>> Many thanks to you and the team to help make smc more stable and robust.
>
> Our pleasure 😁. The stability of smc is important to us too.
>
> Best wishes,
> D. Wythe
Just one more thought: I noticed that
9744d2bf1976 ("smc: Fix use-after-free in tcp_write_timer_handler().")
states that unlike MPTCP, smc_clcsock_release() does not call __tcp_close().
(which matches your explanation).
Maybe we something similar to the MPTCP approach could also solve this issue?
