Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as drain mode

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:38:27PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:38:03PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:33:45AM -0800, Josh Snyder wrote:
> >> > > I was also puzzled that binding succeeded. Looking into the code paths
> >> > > involved, in inet_csk_get_port, we quickly goto have_snum. From there, we end
> >> > > up dropping into tb_found. Since !hlist_empty(&tb->owners), we end up checking
> >> > > that (tb->fastreuseport > 0 && sk->sk_reuseport && uid_eq(tb->fastuid, uid)).
> >> > > This test passes, so we goto success and bind.
> >> > >
> >> > > Crucially, we are checking the fastreuseport field on the inet_bind_bucket, and
> >> > > not the sk_reuseport variable on the other sockets in the bucket. Since this
> >> > > bit is set based on sk_reuseport at the time the first socket binds (see
> >> > > tb_not_found), I can see no reason why sockets need to keep SO_REUSEPORT set
> >> > > beyond initial binding.
> >> > >
> >> > > Given this, I believe Willy's patch elegantly solves the problem at hand.
> >> >
> >> > Great, thanks for your in-depth explanation.
> >> >
> >> > Eric, do you think that this patch may be acceptable material for next
> >> > merge window (given that it's not a fix per-se) ? If so I'll resubmit
> >> > later.
> >>
> >> I need to check with Craig Gallek, because he was about to upstream a
> >> change to make SO_REUSEPORT more scalable & sexy (like having an [e]BPF
> >> filter to perform the selection in an array of sockets)
> >
> > OK fine. Please note that I also considered using a new value instead of
> > zero there but I preferred to avoid it since the man talked about zero/
> > non-zero so I wanted to limit any API change. If Craig adds new values
> > there then this is something we can reconsider.
> >
> Is there any reason why this turning off a soreuseport socket should
> not apply to UDP also? (seems like we have a need to turn off RX but
> not TX for a UDP socket).

I didn't know it was supported for UDP :-) I guess that's the only reason.

willy