From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBBAC433FE for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235261AbhKWJ3f (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 04:29:35 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:15754 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235244AbhKWJ3f (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 04:29:35 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AN7lIHe007548; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:26 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=tpSjHmSJe+tSuNBZQQQq17WheCJO8kTDOKvEy2gXslE=; b=fk8ZMGMS7gPdl7Gd9wPKltDruwz4HWAhB8T8lOrZ+nTzXkQNJS3pgduHIUauVUaJd+XG YSa944oZuwm8by7s8ksvmUOPCc1bTSxlZsxjsXXNjICmu2U/t8aOPKHW+GssjLRZ1gFo IfTp8VOTUnybcyiY6dQDiRaAkdCba1b4cp30j7fP14Oh6adHVpDBa9A1Mk0GxMfRpaXN R9HNt9VgF/+PuJvr/MlcX24vaSFfvm+yQQN0nuvdabHzEmLR3xSZBDeufvF4n2hYxhsb haNZxcdRjXHLaIbiVF81eV0AimkFZVXFsg7Cui4vY8qpUxyfbOjanYbN3nHhVaQ+ugii IA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cgv7fhr6f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:26 +0000 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1AN9EnhD022498; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:25 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cgv7fhr5m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:25 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1AN9H0Q9025776; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:23 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cer9jp00u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:23 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1AN9QKkL47776066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:21 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A11A4054; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C68A4066; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.145.60.43] (unknown [9.145.60.43]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:26:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 10:26:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net] net/smc: Ensure the active closing peer first closes clcsock Content-Language: en-US To: Tony Lu Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org References: <20211116033011.16658-1-tonylu@linux.alibaba.com> From: Karsten Graul Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH In-Reply-To: <20211116033011.16658-1-tonylu@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: B4ScFv03nlg1NzwlWZXmMu4SQJnwWhNi X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: rcZqsL_69nfgyarezTjennvioNhyNxqU X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-23_03,2021-11-22_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111230048 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 16/11/2021 04:30, Tony Lu wrote: > diff --git a/net/smc/smc_close.c b/net/smc/smc_close.c > index 0f9ffba07d26..04620b53b74a 100644 > --- a/net/smc/smc_close.c > +++ b/net/smc/smc_close.c > @@ -228,6 +228,12 @@ int smc_close_active(struct smc_sock *smc) > /* send close request */ > rc = smc_close_final(conn); > sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1; > + > + /* actively shutdown clcsock before peer close it, > + * prevent peer from entering TIME_WAIT state. > + */ > + if (smc->clcsock && smc->clcsock->sk) > + rc = kernel_sock_shutdown(smc->clcsock, SHUT_RDWR); > } else { While integrating this patch I stumbled over the overwritten rc, which was already set with the return value from smc_close_final(). Is the rc from kernel_sock_shutdown() even important for the result of this function? How to handle this in your opinion?