From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To: Ziyu Zhang <ziyuzhang201@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Andy King <acking@vmware.com>,
George Zhang <georgezhang@vmware.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@gmail.com,
r33s3n6@gmail.com, gality369@gmail.com, zhenghaoran154@gmail.com,
hanguidong02@gmail.com, zzzccc427@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock: keep poll shutdown state consistent
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 12:16:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agrldIdftDXvATYx@sgarzare-redhat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260516034745.260442-1-ziyuzhang201@gmail.com>
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 11:47:45AM +0800, Ziyu Zhang wrote:
>vsock_poll() reads vsk->peer_shutdown before taking the socket
>lock to set EPOLLHUP and EPOLLRDHUP, then reads it again under the
>lock to report EOF readability. A shutdown packet can update
>peer_shutdown while poll is waiting for the lock, so one poll invocation
>can report EPOLLIN without the corresponding HUP/RDHUP bits.
>
>Keep non-connectible sockets on a single lockless READ_ONCE()
Should this be paired with WRITE_ONCE() on writers?
>snapshot. For connectible sockets, defer shutdown-derived poll bits
>until after lock_sock() and use one READ_ONCE() snapshot for both EOF
>readability and HUP/RDHUP. This preserves shutdowns that arrive before
>the lock is acquired and keeps all peer-shutdown-derived bits consistent
>for a poll pass.
>
>Fixes: d021c344051a ("VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets")
>Signed-off-by: Ziyu Zhang <ziyuzhang201@gmail.com>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>index adcba1b7b..bed42347b 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>@@ -1122,6 +1122,25 @@ static int vsock_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int mode)
> return err;
> }
>
>+static __poll_t vsock_poll_shutdown(struct sock *sk, u32 peer_shutdown)
>+{
>+ __poll_t mask = 0;
>+
>+ /* INET sockets treat local write shutdown and peer write shutdown as a
>+ * case of EPOLLHUP set.
>+ */
>+ if (sk->sk_shutdown == SHUTDOWN_MASK ||
>+ ((sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) &&
>+ (peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)))
>+ mask |= EPOLLHUP;
>+
>+ if (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN ||
>+ peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
>+ mask |= EPOLLRDHUP;
>+
>+ return mask;
>+}
>+
> static __poll_t vsock_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
> poll_table *wait)
> {
>@@ -1139,19 +1158,9 @@ static __poll_t vsock_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
> /* Signify that there has been an error on this socket. */
> mask |= EPOLLERR;
>
>- /* INET sockets treat local write shutdown and peer write shutdown as a
>- * case of EPOLLHUP set.
>- */
>- if ((sk->sk_shutdown == SHUTDOWN_MASK) ||
>- ((sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) &&
>- (vsk->peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN))) {
>- mask |= EPOLLHUP;
>- }
>-
>- if (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN ||
>- vsk->peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) {
>- mask |= EPOLLRDHUP;
>- }
>+ if (!sock_type_connectible(sk->sk_type))
>+ mask |= vsock_poll_shutdown(sk,
>+ READ_ONCE(vsk->peer_shutdown));
Can we move this in the `if (sock->type == SOCK_DGRAM)` branch ?
Not a strong opinion about that, but in any case IMO we should add a
comment here to explain why we are doing only for not connectible
sockets.
That said, if we use WRITE_ONCE in the writers, do we really need to
move this after the lock_sock for the connectable ones?
>
> if (sk_is_readable(sk))
> mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>@@ -1171,6 +1180,7 @@ static __poll_t vsock_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
>
> } else if (sock_type_connectible(sk->sk_type)) {
> const struct vsock_transport *transport;
>+ u32 peer_shutdown;
>
> lock_sock(sk);
>
>@@ -1203,10 +1213,12 @@ static __poll_t vsock_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
> * terminated should also be considered read, and we check the
> * shutdown flag for that.
> */
>+ peer_shutdown = READ_ONCE(vsk->peer_shutdown);
> if (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN ||
>- vsk->peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) {
>+ peer_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) {
> mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
> }
>+ mask |= vsock_poll_shutdown(sk, peer_shutdown);
nit: to keep the order the same as before, I would move this call just
before this `if` block, but I don't think it makes any difference in the
end.
>
> /* Connected sockets that can produce data can be written. */
> if (transport && sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED) {
>--
>2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-18 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-16 3:47 [PATCH net] vsock: keep poll shutdown state consistent Ziyu Zhang
2026-05-18 10:16 ` Stefano Garzarella [this message]
2026-05-18 12:39 ` ziyu zhang
2026-05-19 9:36 ` Stefano Garzarella
2026-05-19 15:58 ` ziyu zhang
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=agrldIdftDXvATYx@sgarzare-redhat \
--to=sgarzare@redhat.com \
--cc=acking@vmware.com \
--cc=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dtor@vmware.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gality369@gmail.com \
--cc=georgezhang@vmware.com \
--cc=hanguidong02@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=r33s3n6@gmail.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=zhenghaoran154@gmail.com \
--cc=ziyuzhang201@gmail.com \
--cc=zzzccc427@gmail.com \
/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