Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <5ce801b7-d446-ee28-86ec-968b7c172a80@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 14:45:24 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net/smc: postpone sk_refcnt increment in connect()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     liuyacan@corp.netease.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ubraun@linux.ibm.com
References: <20220523032437.1059718-1-liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
 <20220523045707.1704761-1-liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
In-Reply-To: <20220523045707.1704761-1-liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/05/2022 06:57, liuyacan@corp.netease.com wrote:
> From: liuyacan <liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
> 
> Same trigger condition as commit 86434744. When setsockopt runs
> in parallel to a connect(), and switch the socket into fallback
> mode. Then the sk_refcnt is incremented in smc_connect(), but
> its state stay in SMC_INIT (NOT SMC_ACTIVE). This cause the
> corresponding sk_refcnt decrement in __smc_release() will not be
> performed.
> 
> Fixes: 86434744fedf ("net/smc: add fallback check to connect()")
> Signed-off-by: liuyacan <liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
> ---
>  net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index fce16b9d6..45a24d242 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -1564,9 +1564,9 @@ static int smc_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr,
>  	if (rc && rc != -EINPROGRESS)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	sock_hold(&smc->sk); /* sock put in passive closing */
>  	if (smc->use_fallback)
>  		goto out;
> +	sock_hold(&smc->sk); /* sock put in passive closing */
>  	if (flags & O_NONBLOCK) {
>  		if (queue_work(smc_hs_wq, &smc->connect_work))
>  			smc->connect_nonblock = 1;

This is a rather unusual problem that can come up when fallback=true BEFORE smc_connect()
is called. But nevertheless, it is a problem.

Right now I am not sure if it is okay when we NOT hold a ref to smc->sk during all fallback
processing. This change also conflicts with a patch that is already on net-next (3aba1030).

With the new patch on net-next it would also be possible to detect in __smc_release() that
the socket is in state sk->sk_state == SMC_INIT but the sock->state is SS_CONNECTING or 
SS_CONNECTED and call sock_put() in this case.
What do you think?