Re: [PATCH net-next v8 06/14] vsock/virtio: add netns to virtio transport common

Bobby Eshleman
2025-11-07T15:47:30Z

On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 04:07:39PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 06:33:33AM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> > > > > index dcc8a1d5851e..b8e52c71920a 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> > > > > @@ -316,6 +316,15 @@ static struct sk_buff *virtio_transport_alloc_skb(struct virtio_vsock_pkt_info *
> > > > > info->flags,
> > > > > zcopy);
> > > > >
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * If there is no corresponding socket, then we don't have a
> > > > > + * corresponding namespace. This only happens For VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RST.
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > So, in virtio_transport_recv_pkt() should we check that `net` is not set?
> > > >
> > > > Should we set it to NULL here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > > > + if (vsk) {
> > > > > + virtio_vsock_skb_set_net(skb, info->net);
> > > >
> > > > Ditto here about the net refcnt, can the net disappear?
> > > > Should we use get_net() in some way, or the socket will prevent that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As long as the socket has an outstanding skb it can't be destroyed and
> > > so will have a reference to the net, that is after skb_set_owner_w() and
> > > freeing... so I think this is okay.
> > >
> > > But, maybe we could simplify the implied relationship between skb, sk,
> > > and net by removing the VIRTIO_VSOCK_SKB_CB(skb)->net entirely, and only
> > > ever referring to sock_net(skb->sk)? I remember originally having a
> > > reason for adding it to the cb, but my hunch is it that it was probably
> > > some confusion over the !vsk case.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> >
> > ... now I remember the reason, because I didn't want two different
> > places for storing the net for RX and TX.
>
> Yeah, but if we can reuse skb->sk for one path and pass it as parameter to
> the other path (see my prev email), why store it?
>
> Or even in the TX maybe it can be passed to .send_pkt() in some way, e.g.
> storing it in struct virtio_vsock_sock instead that for each skb.
>
> Stefano
>

That's a good point, the rx path only needs to pass to recv_pkt(), it is
not needed after the socket lookup there.

With TX, it does look like we could get rid of it via the
virtio_vsock_sock.

Best,
Bobby