[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241202-sockmap-replace-v1-0-1e88579e7bd5@rbox.co>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:29:22 +0100
From: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
"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>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf, sockmap: Fix the element replace
Series takes care of two issues with sockmap update: inconsistent behaviour
after update with same, and race/refcount imbalance on element replace.
I am hesitant if patch 3/3 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix race between element replace
and close()") is the right approach. I might have missed some detail of the
current __sock_map_delete() implementation. I'd be grateful for comments,
thanks.
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
---
Michal Luczaj (3):
bpf, sockmap: Fix update element with same
selftest/bpf: Extend test for sockmap update with same
bpf, sockmap: Fix race between element replace and close()
net/core/sock_map.c | 6 +++---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 8 +++++---
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 537a2525eaf76ea9b0dca62b994500d8670b39d5
change-id: 20241201-sockmap-replace-67c7077f3a31
Best regards,
--
Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists