netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/4] vsock: fix server prevents clients from reconnecting

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: <arbypnxtolin6jhz5wqguh4mnqlejtorgx5gvicwbuqdivjpds@lvitwxxfgy2g>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:50:43 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: f.storniolo95@...il.com
Cc: luigi.leonardi@...look.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 
	edumazet@...gle.com, mst@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	asias@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] vsock: fix server prevents clients from
 reconnecting

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 06:55:47PM +0100, f.storniolo95@...il.com wrote:
>From: Filippo Storniolo <f.storniolo95@...il.com>
>
>This patch series introduce fix and tests for the following vsock bug:
>If the same remote peer, using the same port, tries to connect
>to a server on a listening port more than once, the server will
>reject the connection, causing a "connection reset by peer"
>error on the remote peer. This is due to the presence of a
>dangling socket from a previous connection in both the connected
>and bound socket lists.
>The inconsistency of the above lists only occurs when the remote
>peer disconnects and the server remains active.
>This bug does not occur when the server socket is closed.
>
>More details on the first patch changelog.
>The remaining patches are refactoring and test.

Thanks for the fix and the test!

I only left a small comment in patch 2 which I don't think justifies a
v2 by itself though. If for some other reason you have to send a v2,
then maybe I would fix it.

I reviewed the series and ran the tests. Everything seems to be fine.

Thanks,
Stefano