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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230114132705.78400-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <CANn89iJ+KW+=Z13o_K4RpZfoxO8rGaXRXQ07jZfpE5RMH0Uweg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJ+KW+=Z13o_K4RpZfoxO8rGaXRXQ07jZfpE5RMH0Uweg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 08:36:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoD-V-XKrXMMEheBnohD-h6ig12zhtQUAt6ATE4jWcuLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] tcp: avoid the lookup process failing to get sk in
 ehash table
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, dsahern@kernel.org,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:12 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 2:27 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> >
> >
> > Fixes: 5e0724d027f0 ("tcp/dccp: fix hashdance race for passive sessions")
> > Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230112065336.41034-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> > ---
> > v2:
> > 1) adding the sk node into the tail of list to prevent the race.
> > 2) fix the race condition when handling time-wait socket hashdance.
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c    | 10 ++++++++++
> >  net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock.c |  6 +++---
> >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> > index 24a38b56fab9..b0b54ad55507 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> > @@ -650,7 +650,16 @@ bool inet_ehash_insert(struct sock *sk, struct sock *osk, bool *found_dup_sk)
> >         spin_lock(lock);
> >         if (osk) {
> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_hash != osk->sk_hash);
> > +               if (sk_hashed(osk))
>
>
> nit: this should be:
>
> if (sk_hashed(osk)) {  [1]
>     /* multi-line ....
>      * .... comment.
>      */
>    ret = sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(osk);
>    goto unlock;
> }
> if (found_dup_sk) {  [2]
>
> 1) parentheses needed in [1]
> 2) No else if in [2], since you added a "goto unlock;"
>

I'll do that. It looks much better.

Thanks,
Jason

> > +                       /* Before deleting the node, we insert a new one to make
> > +                        * sure that the look-up-sk process would not miss either
> > +                        * of them and that at least one node would exist in ehash
> > +                        * table all the time. Otherwise there's a tiny chance
> > +                        * that lookup process could find nothing in ehash table.
> > +                        */
> > +                       __sk_nulls_add_node_tail_rcu(sk, list);
> >                 ret = sk_nulls_del_node_init_rcu(osk);
> > +               goto unlock;
> >         } else if (found_dup_sk) {
> >                 *found_dup_sk = inet_ehash_lookup_by_sk(sk, list);
> >                 if (*found_dup_sk)
> > @@ -660,6 +669,7 @@ bool inet_ehash_insert(struct sock *sk, struct sock *osk, bool *found_dup_sk)
> >         if (ret)
> >                 __sk_nulls_add_node_rcu(sk, list);
> >
> > +unlock:
> >         spin_unlock(lock);
>
> Thanks.