On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 01:09:20PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:34:35AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 03:48:22PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
[...]
> > +out:
> > + if (new_skb)
> > + __skb_queue_tail(&new_queue, new_skb);
> > +
> > + skb_queue_splice(&new_queue, &vvs->rx_queue);
>
> I think the new skbs will also need skb_set_owner_sk_safe(skb, sk)
> when adding to rx_queue?
IIRC we added it in the rx path, mainily for loopback to pass the ownership
from the tx socket to the rx socket, but here we are already in the rx path,
so the skb will never leave this socket.
Ah that's right, I stand corrected. There is no sender to leak in this
case.
Maybe it's necessary for the eBPF path?
Looking through sockmap, I don't think it depends on skb->sk being
non-null either (it reassigns owner to the redirect socket anyway using
skb_set_owner_r()).
Sorry for the false alarm. LGTM.
Thanks for checking!
Reviewed-by: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]>
I'm going to add a threashold as Paolo suggested. Do you prefer to look
at v2 or should I carry your R-b ?
Thanks,
Stefano
