linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 4/8] vsock: make vsock bind reusable

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]

Message-ID: <p2tgn3wczd3t3dodyicczetr2nqnqpwcadz6ql5hpvg2cd2dxa@phheksxhxfna>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 17:25:55 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
        Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 4/8] vsock: make vsock bind reusable

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:58:31AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable
>for different bind tables. For use by datagrams in a future patch.
>
>Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>index ef86765f3765..7a3ca4270446 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>@@ -230,11 +230,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
> 	sock_put(&vsk->sk);
> }
>
>-static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>+struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
>+					    struct list_head *bind_table)
> {
> 	struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>
>-	list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) {
>+	list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) {
> 		if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, &vsk->local_addr))
> 			return sk_vsock(vsk);
>
>@@ -247,6 +248,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> 	return NULL;
> }
>
>+static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>+{
>+	return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr));
>+}
>+
> static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
> 						  struct sockaddr_vm *dst)
> {
>@@ -646,12 +652,17 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> /**** SOCKET OPERATIONS ****/
>
>-static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>-				    struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>+static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>+			     struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
>+			     struct list_head *bind_table,
>+			     size_t table_size)
> {
> 	static u32 port;
> 	struct sockaddr_vm new_addr;
>
>+	if (table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE)
>+		return -1;

Why we need this check now?

>+
> 	if (!port)
> 		port = get_random_u32_above(LAST_RESERVED_PORT);
>
>@@ -667,7 +678,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>
> 			new_addr.svm_port = port++;
>
>-			if (!__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr)) {
>+			if (!vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr,
>+							    &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])) {
> 				found = true;
> 				break;
> 			}
>@@ -684,7 +696,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 			return -EACCES;
> 		}
>
>-		if (__vsock_find_bound_socket(&new_addr))
>+		if (vsock_find_bound_socket_common(&new_addr,
>+						   &bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)]))
> 			return -EADDRINUSE;
> 	}
>
>@@ -696,11 +709,17 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 	 * by AF_UNIX.
> 	 */
> 	__vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
>-	__vsock_insert_bound(vsock_bound_sockets(&vsk->local_addr), vsk);
>+	__vsock_insert_bound(&bind_table[VSOCK_HASH(&vsk->local_addr)], vsk);
>
> 	return 0;
> }
>
>+static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
>+				    struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
>+{
>+	return vsock_bind_common(vsk, addr, vsock_bind_table, VSOCK_HASH_SIZE + 1);
>+}
>+
> static int __vsock_bind_dgram(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 			      struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> {
>
>-- 
>2.30.2
>

The rest seems okay to me, but I agree with Simon's suggestion.

Stefano