Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6b79fd16-79dd-450f-7eb7-ba5d6be2be0c@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 14:05:26 +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
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, ubraun@linux.ibm.com
References: <e0b64b80-90e1-5aed-1ca4-f6d20ebac6b7@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220523152119.406443-1-liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
In-Reply-To: <20220523152119.406443-1-liuyacan@corp.netease.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/05/2022 17:21, liuyacan@corp.netease.com wrote:
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> Do you mean put the ref to smc->sk during all fallback processing unconditionally and remove 
>>> the fallback branch sock_put() in __smc_release()?
>>
>> What I had in mind was to eventually call sock_put() in __smc_release() even if sk->sk_state == SMC_INIT
>> (currently the extra check in the if() for sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT prevents the sock_put()), but only
>> when it is sure that we actually reached the sock_hold() in smc_connect() before.
>>
>> But maybe we find out that the sock_hold() is not needed for fallback sockets, I don't know...
> 
> I do think the sock_hold()/sock_put() for smc->sk is a bit complicated, Emm, I'm not sure if it 
> can be simplified..
> 
> In fact, I'm sure there must be another ref count issue in my environment,but I haven't caught it yet.
> 

Can you check my latest mail from a minute ago in thread
"Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net/smc: align the connect behaviour with TCP"
I think this answer also affects our discussion.