netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: init conn.tx_work & conn.send

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, 17 May 2018 15:57:57 +0200
From:   Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: init conn.tx_work & conn.send_lock
 sooner



On 05/17/2018 02:20 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:13 AM Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> This problem should no longer show up with yesterday's net-next commit
>> 569bc6436568 ("net/smc: no tx work trigger for fallback sockets").
> 
> It definitely triggers on latest net-next, which includes 569bc6436568
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Sorry, my fault. 

Your proposed patch solves the problem. On the other hand the purpose of
smc_tx_init() has been to cover tx-related socket initializations needed for
connection sockets only. tx_work is something that should be scheduled only
for active connection sockets in non-fallback mode.
Thus I prefer this alternate patch to solve the problem:

---
 net/smc/af_smc.c |    8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -1362,14 +1362,18 @@ static int smc_setsockopt(struct socket
 		}
 		break;
 	case TCP_NODELAY:
-		if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN) {
+		if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
+		    sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
+		    sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
 			if (val && !smc->use_fallback)
 				mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &smc->conn.tx_work,
 						 0);
 		}
 		break;
 	case TCP_CORK:
-		if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN) {
+		if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
+		    sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
+		    sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
 			if (!val && !smc->use_fallback)
 				mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &smc->conn.tx_work,
 						 0);

What do you think?