Re: [PATCH net] vsock/bpf: Handle EINTR connect() racing against sockmap update

[Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>]

On 3/11/25 14:49, Luigi Leonardi wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:01:11PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> On 3/7/25 15:35, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:58:55AM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>>>> Signal delivered during connect() may result in a disconnect of an already
>>>>> TCP_ESTABLISHED socket. Problem is that such established socket might have
>>>>> been placed in a sockmap before the connection was closed. We end up with a
>>>>> SS_UNCONNECTED vsock in a sockmap. And this, combined with the ability to
>>>>> reassign (unconnected) vsock's transport to NULL, breaks the sockmap
>>>>> contract. As manifested by WARN_ON_ONCE.
>>>>
>>>> Note that Luigi is currently working on a (vsock test suit) test[1] for a
>>>> related bug, which could be neatly adapted to test this bug as well.
>>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250306-test_vsock-v1-0-0320b5accf92@redhat.com/
>>>
>>> Can you work with Luigi to include the changes in that series?
>>
>> I was just going to wait for Luigi to finish his work (no rush, really) and
>> then try to parametrize it.
>>
> 
> Here[1] I pushed the v2 of the series, it addresses Stefano's comments.
> I use b4 to send the patches, so one commit looks "strange". It is used 
> by b4 and it contains the cover letter.
> [1]https://github.com/luigix25/linux/tree/test_vsock_v2
> 
> It would be nice to send both tests together, so whenever your patch is 
> ready, feel free to open me a PR on github or send the series directly 
> in the ML :)

I've noticed you've already sent it to ML and I agree it's better this way.
Perhaps my wording was unclear: by "wait for you to finish" I've meant
"wait for you to get your work merged".

Sorry for confusion,
Michal