On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:35:30AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:58:47AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:47:32PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > Previous to setting the owner the socket is found via > vsock_find_connected_socket(), which returns sk after a call to > sock_hold(). > > If setting the owner fails, then sock_put() needs to be called. > > Fixes: f9d2b1e146e0 ("virtio/vsock: fix leaks due to missing skb owner") > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > index b769fc258931..f01cd6adc5cb 100644 > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > @@ -1343,6 +1343,7 @@ void virtio_transport_recv_pkt(struct virtio_transport *t, > > if (!skb_set_owner_sk_safe(skb, sk)) { > WARN_ONCE(1, "receiving vsock socket has sk_refcnt == 0\n"); > + sock_put(sk); Did you have any warning, issue here? IIUC skb_set_owner_sk_safe() can return false only if the ref counter is 0, so calling a sock_put() on it should have no effect except to produce a warning.Oh yeah, you're totally right. I did not recall how skb_set_owner_sk_safe() worked internally and thought I'd introduced an uneven hold/put count with that prior patch when reading through the code again. I haven't seen any live issue, just misread the code. Sorry about that, feel free to ignore this patch.
No problem ;-) Maybe we should add a comment on it. Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
