linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already established

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <pstj7youxwwrpj3bl2a76kh2t62by2vdakv5elqvueobw3o4pj@tnknzlqdt344>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 12:49:51 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already
 established

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 10:46:22PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>On 11/21/25 10:21, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:12:20PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>> On 11/19/25 20:52, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> To follow up, should I add a version of syzkaller's lockdep warning repro
>>>> to vsock test suite? In theory it could test this fix here as well, but in
>>>> practice the race window is small and hitting it (the brute way) takes
>>>> prohibitively long.
>>>
>>> Replying to self to add more data.
>>>
>>> After reverting
>>>
>>> f7c877e75352 ("vsock: fix lock inversion in vsock_assign_transport()")
>>> 002541ef650b ("vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already
>>> established")
>>>
>>> adding
>>>
>>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>>> @@ -2014,6 +2014,7 @@ static void test_stream_transport_change_client(const
>>> struct test_opts *opts)
>>>                        perror("socket");
>>>                        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>>                }
>>> +               enable_so_linger(s, 1);
>>>
>>>                ret = connect(s, (struct sockaddr *)&sa, sizeof(sa));
>>>                /* The connect can fail due to signals coming from the
>>>
>>> is enough for vsock_test to trigger the lockdep warning syzkaller found.
>>>
>>
>> cool, so if it's only that, maybe is worth adding.
>
>Ok, there it is:
>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251123-vsock_test-linger-lockdep-warn-v1-1-4b1edf9d8cdc@rbox.co/

Great!

>
>And circling back to [1], let me know if you think it's worth adding to the
>suit. I guess it would test the case #2 from [2], but it'd take another 2s

If you think it is better to put them in vsock tests, instead of bpf,
it's fine by me. 2s more is okay IMO.

>and would require both h2g and non-h2g transports enabled.

This should be fine, IIRC we recently added something to check
transports and print warninng or skip tests in that cases.

Thanks,
Stefano

>
>[1]:
>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/fjy4jaww6xualdudevfuyoavnrbu45cg4d7erv4rttde363xfc@nahglijbl2eg/
>[2]:
>https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251119-vsock-interrupted-connect-v2-1-70734cf1233f@rbox.co/
>