From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f171.google.com (mail-pf1-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E023F3D1AA4 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2026 01:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786671920; cv=none; b=kRxSQX6y5H7tVrMtw27oiUlPwOfPO9WPgHIfLhPfeIU8WmtqHLIGFFGZdfA03kJeTeqQ4DKE85Wv6dArDCPf8zJ5YmbG39+Dj1ORmNpeQMDEPw2iCLdgsBLGh1UluCydFhHlNo/V85gT38ETSwt0nS2PAaRdCjc9XpUqyw3rKtI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786671920; c=relaxed/simple; bh=heykRPKxHEV0qeGdFAlsBWMKyo8f6xdx4ceOTJOlyac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kbS7UKt8HNFr1ajKQpYHALzEG+NkijTWwqHQV3oC2riVHtvwxqfvK/Y9fX3tauAub+dE+3EeJqaphPBpVrQidMnFOdsME0/Zz8lYCs+ZCTElUerP7E1wxaO7xQmlPcCMEoCcNIlOcwxnvX5akEWMIbt5D9MVYQMKl+L+/JpIpIg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=RwrDRU1y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="RwrDRU1y" Received: by mail-pf1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-84e0688b7e8so355135b3a.1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:45:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1786671918; x=1787276718; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=mi5MeuhJzZM9OklNSe8gi6ctTiynO5KFec8hcGTI+Lc=; b=RwrDRU1y20OHPd0MAgJOgHx4jXC+LeBhkmidspCBGOviTsJLTxxH33AO0A07Xtt7Qv joUJIKsBXg4IE91YVL5WKkz83MA82DZ4g9keiqdC8IOqrEqd8zprbSl7zvX46LXK8tsA kMwDIbyFl/Ytv/kxa+eyG4rnAydww/vxF1ISTtVgaM1DQWsXv+5DZyjZMHa/ybOzFUoK 0l1c1awCc0tFI4Ep5on5hIBz10luqoTTbR9wXZHapNi8EPygyWYyGfXl3JEfltuxwA8H 0Wvu45DDr9eqJKbXKKw6scgnnc/mteGoNy6/cE5APn/OOrNQCeq1pBJFqEH8RaNecQKK d7Wg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1786671918; x=1787276718; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=mi5MeuhJzZM9OklNSe8gi6ctTiynO5KFec8hcGTI+Lc=; b=DECnPs8GxADeZpzvJnzYgkERtn5m4Y2qa1l6iXCreHt/5tnMO4D0ReeeE2gGnECZEP Bx/oLWqAhvOUze4Xeu6zZjB2p33bkl8Tjl4S8yq/amEqFUReEM6+F9vGRSaTdBEGkYXk +AHEGClpbfncCYaX361XsEon/lDImgIfv2X4nUEhAK7IMaZOKmzWByJGH2m5unungsM+ oewLelmb/cc5Rbsexl7IdvdI56bEhV/Gf4Y1QchUkFHQ2PP6X0athCCrIrkTpeWalmWt 44qsOVFDQQZ6k4LUfpZHry4TqAJMvtH+9+z6Iog5lndlH2ht/hNwFUb1gQwlZAmEU5Qh T9lw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RreaNJZxneyiH99dXr/vCUCTt7NZiH+E7aCmfs0qBpyt57kqgB+X9krbepkGYtxT0TVh9RR+RY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzZ0NbunwNYLfe1xzLQ517BgRm1Q4u2ajmQAwbfresj8TZw/3Q7 HtTbtkxhPw0CWlcGnMyDoaZDCSc0kBV1evXFtkjTEqJZXDxdQhTApNkl X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD10RmewnWtvBJusQexpqOGIEndiAZMLr5C2HcCxx+1wcU5BcXlfgOTVFwxdR2kz gWoUBTyEuO0kGuRLiLn6Xj0U+3F54AqwNKGhX9WgPEp0/AJF9ITIazruNzLyENA43sCdksdPpAR elEcCG+c6Sb4/2FBKI1Zw91LOw7O42e3ATK4Tw7RtXLUssBcxIf9q+Bnhi+B3mij9kD3vXmippB cNvrH70pYRnHW1zOuM4VvJ7wE3pCUDGlzxLCEvl32Tsa1ZVB6VKCr27fB5YAMb6WeDhiyB3iFFV IiUe1unBysTaq0WsFvXH0GnuB84aV/v4HEuhjXJv1z2e3UQCE2rMjFHV7mFiXR56w0jAheglfCB BX05cJ62AkonXF9sk/BQ9Q1yfQrlPHXvqiOr9/CiVY+mCHGZXPSMw7UvdAMwQOhEePAvCKwyD5Y myiPXyb8DJYN1omFvCb3bShJYznV7R5aSoek3dYi535V1fQM+/fiwOy2JR8es4ArNhWPOC9QCQw J1TcQoY X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:8d5:b0:847:926c:582c with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-84fde266faamr2008039b3a.29.1786671918198; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from v4bel ([58.123.110.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-84fc4563649sm1508027b3a.7.2026.08.13.18.45.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:45:11 +0900 From: Hyunwoo Kim To: Michal Luczaj Cc: sgarzare@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, leonardi@redhat.com, bobbyeshleman@meta.com, stefanha@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, imv4bel@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock: do not reset a socket in connect() once it has connected Message-ID: References: <218226a4-38e6-4a16-a660-6c1bb92f9f96@rbox.co> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <218226a4-38e6-4a16-a660-6c1bb92f9f96@rbox.co> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 11:42:17AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: > On 8/12/26 22:13, Hyunwoo Kim wrote: > > commit 002541ef650b ("vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if > > already established") stopped connect() from resetting an established > > socket. The check only looks at whether sk_state is TCP_ESTABLISHED at > > that moment, and the state can change while connect() sleeps. > > I guess this makes my fix incomplete. "Fixes: 002541ef650b"? It is incomplete, yes. But this has been triggerable since d021c344051a, so I'd keep Fixes: d021c344051a. > > > A peer RST moves the socket to TCP_CLOSING, and it is not removed from > > vsock_connected_table on that path. connect() then wakes up, fails the > > check, and resets a socket that had actually connected to TCP_CLOSE and > > SS_UNCONNECTED. > > Thanks for the details. Do I get it right: connect() misses the fact that > socket might have already transitioned TCP_ESTABLISHED -> TCP_CLOSING > during schedule_timeout()? Yes, that's it. > > How about: > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > index 622dbd046799..39c42ef016c3 100644 > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c > @@ -1807,15 +1807,18 @@ static int vsock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr_unsized *addr, > timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout); > lock_sock(sk); > > - /* Connection established. Whatever happens to socket once we > + /* Connection (has been) established. Whatever happens to socket once we > * release it, that's not connect()'s concern. No need to go > * into signal and timeout handling. Call it a day. > * > * Note that allowing to "reset" an already established socket > * here is racy and insecure. > */ > - if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED) > - break; > + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED || > + sk->sk_state == TCP_CLOSING) { > + err = -sk->sk_err; > + goto out_wait; > + } > > /* If connection was _not_ established and a signal/timeout came > * to be, we want the socket's state reset. User space may want > > ? Yes, I like it better than mine. I confirmed it fixes the issue. If you don't mind, would you take the patch from here? Best regards, Hyunwoo Kim