From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc: MPTCP Upstream <mptcp@lists.linux.dev>,
Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6.y] selftests: mptcp: join: cannot rm sf if closed
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:43:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <129aa31e-44e9-4327-ba0a-d976a5e00d06@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240903101845.3378766-2-matttbe@kernel.org>
Hi Greg, Sasha,
On 03/09/2024 12:18, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
> commit e93681afcb96864ec26c3b2ce94008ce93577373 upstream.
>
> Thanks to the previous commit, the MPTCP subflows are now closed on both
> directions even when only the MPTCP path-manager of one peer asks for
> their closure.
>
> In the two tests modified here -- "userspace pm add & remove address"
> and "userspace pm create destroy subflow" -- one peer is controlled by
> the userspace PM, and the other one by the in-kernel PM. When the
> userspace PM sends a RM_ADDR notification, the in-kernel PM will
> automatically react by closing all subflows using this address. Now,
> thanks to the previous commit, the subflows are properly closed on both
> directions, the userspace PM can then no longer closes the same
> subflows if they are already closed. Before, it was OK to do that,
> because the subflows were still half-opened, still OK to send a RM_ADDR.
>
> In other words, thanks to the previous commit closing the subflows, an
> error will be returned to the userspace if it tries to close a subflow
> that has already been closed. So no need to run this command, which mean
> that the linked counters will then not be incremented.
>
> These tests are then no longer sending both a RM_ADDR, then closing the
> linked subflow just after. The test with the userspace PM on the server
> side is now removing one subflow linked to one address, then sending
> a RM_ADDR for another address. The test with the userspace PM on the
> client side is now only removing the subflow that was previously
> created.
FYI, Sasha has recently queued this patch to v6.6, with a bunch of
dependences.
I'm OK with that, no need to take this version here where I resolved the
conflicts not to take the dependences. But then, please also queue the 2
patches that are needed for new dependences that have been added:
https://lore.kernel.org/20240904133755.67974-4-matttbe@kernel.org
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-04 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2024083052-unedited-earache-8049@gregkh>
2024-09-03 10:18 ` [PATCH 6.6.y] selftests: mptcp: join: cannot rm sf if closed Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
2024-09-04 13:43 ` Matthieu Baerts [this message]
2024-09-04 14:22 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=129aa31e-44e9-4327-ba0a-d976a5e00d06@kernel.org \
--to=matttbe@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=martineau@kernel.org \
--cc=mptcp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox