linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v9 19/19] af_vsock: serialize writes to shared socket

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 16:46:53 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stsp2@...dex.ru, oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 19/19] af_vsock: serialize writes to shared socket

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 04:01:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:37:35PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>This add logic, that serializes write access to single socket
>>by multiple threads. It is implemented be adding field with TID
>>of current writer. When writer tries to send something, it checks
>>that field is -1(free), else it sleep in the same way as waiting
>>for free space at peers' side.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
>>---
>>include/net/af_vsock.h   |  1 +
>>net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>I think you forgot to move this patch at the beginning of the series.
>It's important because in this way we can backport to stable branches 
>easily.
>
>About the implementation, can't we just add a mutex that we hold until 
>we have sent all the payload?

Re-thinking, I guess we can't because we have the timeout to deal 
with...

>
>I need to check other implementations like TCP.
>

Thanks,
Stefano