[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220315004503.46906-1-kuniyu@amazon.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:45:03 +0900
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>
To: <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
<kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: Support POLLPRI for OOB.
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 17:26:54 -0700
> On 3/14/22 11:10, Shoaib Rao wrote:
>>
>> On 3/14/22 10:42, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/13/22 22:21, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>>> The commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support") introduced OOB for
>>>> AF_UNIX, but it lacks some changes for POLLPRI. Let's add the missing
>>>> piece.
>>>>
>>>> In the selftest, normal datagrams are sent followed by OOB data, so
>>>> this
>>>> commit replaces `POLLIN | POLLPRI` with just `POLLPRI` in the first
>>>> test
>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>
>>>> ---
>>>> net/unix/af_unix.c | 2 ++
>>>> tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/test_unix_oob.c | 6 +++---
>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
>>>> index c19569819866..711d21b1c3e1 100644
>>>> --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
>>>> +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
>>>> @@ -3139,6 +3139,8 @@ static __poll_t unix_poll(struct file *file,
>>>> struct socket *sock, poll_table *wa
>>>> mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>>>> if (sk_is_readable(sk))
>>>> mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>>>> + if (unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb)
>>>> + mask |= EPOLLPRI;
>>>
>>>
>>> This adds another data-race, maybe add something to avoid another
>>> syzbot report ?
>>
>> It's not obvious to me how there would be a race as it is just a check.
>>
>
> KCSAN will detect that whenever unix_poll() reads oob_skb,
>
> its value can be changed by another cpu.
>
>
> unix_poll() runs without holding a lock.
Thanks for pointing out!
So, READ_ONCE() is necessary here, right?
oob_skb is written under the lock, so I think there is no paired
WRITE_ONCE(), but is it ok?
>
>
>
>> Also this change should be under #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AF_UNIX_OOB)
And thanks, Shoaib!
Will add the condition in v2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shoaib
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> /* Connection-based need to check for termination and
>>>> startup */
>>>> if ((sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM || sk->sk_type ==
>>>> SOCK_SEQPACKET) &&
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/test_unix_oob.c
>>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/test_unix_oob.c
>>>> index 3dece8b29253..b57e91e1c3f2 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/test_unix_oob.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/test_unix_oob.c
>>>> @@ -218,10 +218,10 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>> /* Test 1:
>>>> * veriyf that SIGURG is
>>>> - * delivered and 63 bytes are
>>>> - * read and oob is '@'
>>>> + * delivered, 63 bytes are
>>>> + * read, oob is '@', and POLLPRI works.
>>>> */
>>>> - wait_for_data(pfd, POLLIN | POLLPRI);
>>>> + wait_for_data(pfd, POLLPRI);
>>>> read_oob(pfd, &oob);
>>>> len = read_data(pfd, buf, 1024);
>>>> if (!signal_recvd || len != 63 || oob != '@') {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists