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;
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:42:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix suspicious RCU usage in
 bpf_sk_reuseport_detach()
Message-ID: <20220817164209.72c182fb@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <3974013.1660769749@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20220816164435.0558ef94@kernel.org>
        <20220816103452.479281-1-yin31149@gmail.com>
        <166064248071.3502205.10036394558814861778.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
        <804153.1660684606@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
        <3974013.1660769749@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 21:55:49 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this
> > field is. 
> > 
> > In fact should we also add && sock_owned_by_user(). Martin, WDYT? Would
> > that work for reuseport? Jakub S is fixing l2tp to hold the socket lock
> > while setting this field, yet most places take the callback lock...  
> 
> So how do you want to proceed?  My first version of the patch with
> sock_owned_by_user()?

Sorry about the lack of clarity. I was sort of expecting the name 
to still be shortened, but what you have is probably good enough.

Applying v1, then, thanks!