On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 08:44:55AM -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > From: Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:52:34 +0100 > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 08:25:34AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 05:27:03AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > [CCed netdev] > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 10:38:40PM -0500, Winter wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I'm facing the same issue as > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/CAFsF8vL4CGFzWMb38_XviiEgxoKX0GYup=JiUFXUOmagdk9CRg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/, > > > > > but on 5.15. I've bisected it across releases to 5.15.88, and can reproduce > > > > > on 5.15.93. > > > > > > > > > > However, I cannot seem to find the identified problematic commit in the 5.15 > > > > > branch, so I'm unsure if this is a different issue or not. > > > > > > > > > > There's a few ways to reproduce this issue, but the one I've been using is > > > > > running libuv's (https://github.com/libuv/libuv) tests, specifically tests > > > > > 271 and 277. > > > > > > > > >From the linked patch: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20221228144337.512799851@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > But that commit only ended up in 6.0.y, not 5.15, so how is this an > > > issue in 5.15.y? > > > > Hmmm I plead -ENOCOFFEE on my side, I hadn't notice the "can't find the > > problematic commit", you're right indeed. > > > > However if the issue happened in 5.15.88, the only part touching the > > network listening area is this one which may introduce an EINVAL on > > one listening path, but that seems unrelated to me given that it's > > only for ULP that libuv doesn't seem to be using: > > > > dadd0dcaa67d ("net/ulp: prevent ULP without clone op from entering the LISTEN status") > > This commit accidentally backports a part of 7a7160edf1bf ("net: Return > errno in sk->sk_prot->get_port().") and removed err = -EADDRINUSE in > inet_csk_listen_start(). Then, listen() will return 0 even if ->get_port() > actually fails and returns 1. > > I can send a small revert or a whole backport, but which is preferable ? > The original patch is not for stable, but it will make future backports > easy. A whole revert is probably best, if it's not needed. But if it is, a fix up would be fine to get as well. thanks, greg k-h
