netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] vsock: Linger on unsent data

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: <wff4t4owsukm2jynm2dhju4rrtegyjjlrhu7o5xppsxfqrcus4@wmsvcwkdtdat>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:56:38 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: Luigi Leonardi <leonardi@...hat.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>, 
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, 
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>, 
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] vsock: Linger on unsent data

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>On 4/24/25 10:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 at 09:53, Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co> wrote:
>>> On 4/24/25 09:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

[...]

>>> You're right, it was me who was confused. VMCI and Hyper-V have their own
>>> vsock_transport::release callbacks that do not call
>>> virtio_transport_wait_close().
>>>
>>> So VMCI and Hyper-V never lingered anyway?
>>
>> I think so.
>>
>> Indeed I was happy with v1, since I think this should be supported by
>> the vsock core and should not depend on the transport.
>> But we can do also later.
>
>OK, for now let me fix this nonsense in comment and commit message.

Thanks!

>
>But I'll wait for your opinion on [1] (drop, squash, change order of
>patches?) before posting v3.

I'm fine with a second patch to fix the indentation and the order looks 
fine.

BTW I'm thinking if it makes sense to go back on moving the lingering in 
the core. I mean, if `unsent_bytes` is implemented, support linger, if 
not, don't support it, like now.

That said, this should be implemented in another patch (or eventually 
another series if you prefer), so my idea is the following split:
- use unsent_bytes() just in virtio
- move linger support in af_vsock.c (depending on transports 
   implementing unsent_bytes())
- implement unsent_bytes() in other transports (in the future)

WDYT?

Thanks,
Stefano