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

Alistair Francis
2025-11-14T03:44:55Z

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:37 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/13/25 9:01 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > 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.

Hmmm... Then each KeyUpdate needs to be distinctive, which will
indefinitely grow the hash table

>
> Another thought: expand the current _req structure to also manage
> KeyUpdates. I think there can be only one upcall request pending
> at a time, right?

There should only be a single request pending per queue.

I'm not sure I see what we could do to expand the _req structure.

What about adding `HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_CANCEL` to `hr_flags_bits` and
using that to ensure we don't free something that is currently being
cancelled and the other way around?

Alistair

>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever