Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] vsock: Move lingering logic to af_vsock core

[Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>]

On 4/30/25 11:33, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:10:29AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Lingering should be transport-independent in the long run. In preparation
>> for supporting other transports, as well the linger on shutdown(), move
>> code to core.
>>
>> Guard against an unimplemented vsock_transport::unsent_bytes() callback.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
>> ---
>> include/net/af_vsock.h                  |  1 +
>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c                | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 23 +----------------------
>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/af_vsock.h b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>> index 9e85424c834353d016a527070dd62e15ff3bfce1..bd8b88d70423051dd05fc445fe37971af631ba03 100644
>> --- a/include/net/af_vsock.h
>> +++ b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>> @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ void vsock_for_each_connected_socket(struct vsock_transport *transport,
>> 				     void (*fn)(struct sock *sk));
>> int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk);
>> bool vsock_find_cid(unsigned int cid);
>> +void vsock_linger(struct sock *sk, long timeout);
>>
>> /**** TAP ****/
>>
>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> index fc6afbc8d6806a4d98c66abc3af4bd139c583b08..946b37de679a0e68b84cd982a3af2a959c60ee57 100644
>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>> @@ -1013,6 +1013,31 @@ static int vsock_getname(struct socket *sock,
>> 	return err;
>> }
>>
>> +void vsock_linger(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>> +{
>> +	DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
>> +	ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
>> +	struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
>> +
>> +	if (!timeout)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	/* unsent_bytes() may be unimplemented. */
>> +	unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
>> +	if (!unsent)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0, &wait))
>> +			break;
>> +	} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
>> +
>> +	remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_linger);
>> +
>> static int vsock_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int mode)
>> {
>> 	int err;
>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> index 4425802c5d718f65aaea425ea35886ad64e2fe6e..9230b8358ef2ac1f6e72a5961bae39f9093c8884 100644
>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>> @@ -1192,27 +1192,6 @@ static void virtio_transport_remove_sock(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>> 	vsock_remove_sock(vsk);
>> }
>>
>> -static void virtio_transport_wait_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
>> -{
>> -	DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function);
>> -	ssize_t (*unsent)(struct vsock_sock *vsk);
>> -	struct vsock_sock *vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
>> -
>> -	if (!timeout)
>> -		return;
>> -
>> -	unsent = vsk->transport->unsent_bytes;
>> -
>> -	add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> -
>> -	do {
>> -		if (sk_wait_event(sk, &timeout, unsent(vsk) == 0, &wait))
>> -			break;
>> -	} while (!signal_pending(current) && timeout);
>> -
>> -	remove_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
>> -}
>> -
>> static void virtio_transport_cancel_close_work(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>> 					       bool cancel_timeout)
>> {
>> @@ -1283,7 +1262,7 @@ static bool virtio_transport_close(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>> 		(void)virtio_transport_shutdown(vsk, SHUTDOWN_MASK);
>>
>> 	if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_LINGER) && !(current->flags & PF_EXITING))
>> -		virtio_transport_wait_close(sk, sk->sk_lingertime);
>> +		vsock_linger(sk, sk->sk_lingertime);
> 
> What about removing the `sk->sk_lingertime` parameter here?
> vsock_linger() can get it from sk.

Certainly. I assume this does not need a separate patch and can be done
while moving (and de-indenting) the code?

> BTW, the change LGTM, would be great to call vsock_linger() directly in 
> __vsock_release(), but we can do it later.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
> 
>>
>> 	if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DONE)) {
>> 		return true;
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.49.0