From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751975AbbKJC7N (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:59:13 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35509 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751252AbbKJC7K (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:59:10 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:59:06 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Subject: Re: Deadlock between bind and splice
Message-ID: <20151110025906.GA22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <CACT4Y+brDX=C15jSs33zGaCBt2BDPPzBcgqtKA2dYMdviYjKww@mail.gmail.com>
 <1446824535.4184.69.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20151110023854.GZ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151110023854.GZ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:38:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:42:15AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Thank you for this report.
> > 
> > pipe is part of fs, not net ;)
> 
> AF_UNIX bind() vs. socketpair() interplay, OTOH...

FWIW, BSD folks unlock the socket for the duration of mknod - mark it as
"somebody's trying to bind it" to avoid the fun with racing double bind(),
but that's about it.  Tempting, to be honest...

BTW, why does unix_autobind() do allocation under ->readlock?  The allocation
will be normally used - that if (u->addr) return; part is just dealing with
an unlikely race, as far as I can see...