Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] net/handshake: Define handshake_sk_destruct_req

Chuck Lever
2025-11-13T14:02:03Z

On 11/13/25 5:19 AM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 1:47 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/25 11:27 PM, alistair23@gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
>>>
>>> Define a `handshake_sk_destruct_req()` function to allow the destruction
>>> of the handshake req.
>>>
>>> This is required to avoid hash conflicts when handshake_req_hash_add()
>>> is called as part of submitting the KeyUpdate request.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>>> ---
>>> v5:
>>> - No change
>>> v4:
>>> - No change
>>> v3:
>>> - New patch
>>>
>>> net/handshake/request.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/handshake/request.c b/net/handshake/request.c
>>> index 274d2c89b6b2..0d1c91c80478 100644
>>> --- a/net/handshake/request.c
>>> +++ b/net/handshake/request.c
>>> @@ -98,6 +98,22 @@ static void handshake_sk_destruct(struct sock *sk)
>>> sk_destruct(sk);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * handshake_sk_destruct_req - destroy an existing request
>>> + * @sk: socket on which there is an existing request
>>
>> Generally the kdoc style is unnecessary for static helper functions,
>> especially functions with only a single caller.
>>
>> This all looks so much like handshake_sk_destruct(). Consider
>> eliminating the code duplication by splitting that function into a
>> couple of helpers instead of adding this one.
>>
>>
>>> + */
>>> +static void handshake_sk_destruct_req(struct sock *sk)
>>
>> Because this function is static, I imagine that the compiler will
>> bark about the addition of an unused function. Perhaps it would
>> be better to combine 2/6 and 3/6.
>>
>> That would also make it easier for reviewers to check the resource
>> accounting issues mentioned below.
>>
>>
>>> +{
>>> + struct handshake_req *req;
>>> +
>>> + req = handshake_req_hash_lookup(sk);
>>> + if (!req)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + trace_handshake_destruct(sock_net(sk), req, sk);
>>
>> Wondering if this function needs to preserve the socket's destructor
>> callback chain like so:
>>
>> + void (sk_destruct)(struct sock sk);
>>
>> ...
>>
>> + sk_destruct = req->hr_odestruct;
>> + sk->sk_destruct = sk_destruct;
>>
>> then:
>>
>>> + handshake_req_destroy(req);
>>
>> Because of the current code organization and patch ordering, it's
>> difficult to confirm that sock_put() isn't necessary here.
>>
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * handshake_req_alloc - Allocate a handshake request
>>> * @proto: security protocol
>>
>> There's no synchronization preventing concurrent handshake_req_cancel()
>> calls from accessing the request after it's freed during handshake
>> completion. That is one reason why handshake_complete() leaves completed
>> requests in the hash.
>
> Ah, so you are worried that free-ing the request will race with
> accessing the request after a handshake_req_hash_lookup().
>
> Ok, makes sense. It seems like one answer to that is to add synchronisation
>
>>
>> So I'm thinking that removing requests like this is not going to work
>> out. Would it work better if handshake_req_hash_add() could recognize
>> that a KeyUpdate is going on, and allow replacement of a hashed
>> request? I haven't thought that through.
>
> I guess the idea would be to do something like this in
> handshake_req_hash_add() if the entry already exists?
>
> if (test_and_set_bit(HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_COMPLETED, &req->hr_flags)) {
> /* Request already completed */
> rhashtable_replace_fast(...);
> }
>
> I'm not sure that's better. That could possibly still race with
> something that hasn't yet set HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_COMPLETED and overwrite
> the request unexpectedly.
>
> What about adding synchronisation and keeping the current approach?
> From a quick look it should be enough to just edit
> handshake_sk_destruct() and handshake_req_cancel()

Or make the KeyUpdate requests somehow distinctive so they do not
collide with initial handshake requests.

> Alistair
>
>>
>>
>> As always, please double-check my questions and assumptions before
>> revising this patch!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever

--
Chuck Lever