On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 at 09:57, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:42:30PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
[...]
> >
> >So, if I get this right:
> >1. vsock_create() (refcnt=1) calls vsock_insert_unbound() (refcnt=2)
> >2. transport->release() calls vsock_remove_bound() without checking if sk
> > was bound and moved to bound list (refcnt=1)
> >3. vsock_bind() assumes sk is in unbound list and before
> > __vsock_insert_bound(vsock_bound_sockets()) calls
> > __vsock_remove_bound() which does:
> > list_del_init(&vsk->bound_table); // nop
> > sock_put(&vsk->sk); // refcnt=0
> >
> >The following fixes things for me. I'm just not certain that's the only
> >place where transport destruction may lead to an unbound socket being
> >removed from the unbound list.
> >
> >diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >index 7f7de6d88096..0fe807c8c052 100644
> >--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >@@ -1303,7 +1303,8 @@ void virtio_transport_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
> >
> > if (remove_sock) {
> > sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_DONE);
> >- virtio_transport_remove_sock(vsk);
> >+ if (vsock_addr_bound(&vsk->local_addr))
> >+ virtio_transport_remove_sock(vsk);
>
> I don't get this fix, virtio_transport_remove_sock() calls
> vsock_remove_sock()
> vsock_remove_bound()
> if (__vsock_in_bound_table(vsk))
> __vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
>
>
> So, should already avoid this issue, no?
I got it wrong, I see now what are you trying to do, but I don't think
we should skip virtio_transport_remove_sock() entirely, it also purge
the rx_queue.
>
> Can the problem be in vsock_bind() ?
>
> Is this issue pre-existing or introduced by this series?
I think this is pre-existing, can you confirm?
In that case, I'd not stop this series, and fix it in another patch/series.
Thanks,
Stefano
