Re: [Patch bpf-next v4 04/11] skmsg: avoid lock_sock() in sk_psock_backlog()

[Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:32 PM CET, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:32 AM CET, Cong Wang wrote:
>> > diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c
>> > index dd53a7771d7e..26ba47b099f1 100644
>> > --- a/net/core/sock_map.c
>> > +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c
>> > @@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>> >       saved_close = psock->saved_close;
>> >       sock_map_remove_links(sk, psock);
>> >       rcu_read_unlock();
>> > +     sk_psock_purge(psock);
>> >       release_sock(sk);
>> >       saved_close(sk, timeout);
>> >  }
>>
>> Nothing stops sk_psock_backlog from running after sk_psock_purge:
>>
>>
>> CPU 1                                                   CPU 2
>>
>> sk_psock_skb_redirect()
>>   sk_psock(sk_other)
>>   sock_flag(sk_other, SOCK_DEAD)
>>   sk_psock_test_state(psock_other,
>>                       SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED)
>>                                                         sk_psock_purge()
>>   skb_queue_tail(&psock_other->ingress_skb, skb)
>>   schedule_work(&psock_other->work)
>>
>>
>> And sock_orphan can run while we're in sendmsg/sendpage_unlocked:
>>
>>
>> CPU 1                                                   CPU 2
>>
>> sk_psock_backlog
>>   ...
>>   sendmsg_unlocked
>>     sock = sk->sk_socket
>>                                                         tcp_close
>>                                                           __tcp_close
>>                                                             sock_orphan
>>     kernel_sendmsg(sock, msg, vec, num, size)
>>
>>
>> So, after this change, without lock_sock in sk_psock_backlog, we will
>> not block tcp_close from running.
>>
>> This makes me think that the process socket can get released from under
>> us, before kernel_sendmsg/sendpage runs.
>
> I think you are right, I thought socket is orphaned in inet_release(), clearly
> I was wrong. But, I'd argue in the above scenario, the packet should not
> be even queued in the first place, as SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED is going
> to be cleared, so I think the right fix is probably to make clearing psock
> state and queuing the packet under a spinlock.

Sounds like a good idea. The goal, I understand, is to guarantee that
psock holds a ref count on proces socket for the duration of
sk_psock_backlog() run.

That would not only let us get rid of lock_sock(), with finer grained
queue locks, but also the sock_flag(psock->sk, SOCK_DEAD) check.