Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 05:18 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> From: Aaron Conole <[email protected]>
>>
>
> I am wondering what this is expected to do, and how this code would
> possibly not trigger a crash.
Are you suspecting it should crash from a possible double-lock case?
On line 2125, there is an unconditional unlock, which should be
guaranteeing that there is no longer a condition to 'double lock' the
socket.
With my patch, I re-do a lock just before entering skb_peek_next, and
then loop to again: label (line 2078); I admit that there is a check
at the top of the loop which I do not include (the check for SOCK_DEAD).
Do you think this check is needed (and the cause for your concern on
the suspected crash)?
I will re-do the testing as you outline later, and report the results.
> Are you 100% sure you tested this patch and code path ?
Yes, 100%; I used the python code attached to the bug before hacking on
this function whatsoever to ensure that the bug still exists in current
kernel (it does). Then after my patch, I reran the same test. There
were no oops, bugs, panics, or other errors reported.
> Before resending v3, please make sure to compile and test with
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y. Add a temporary (in your tree, not final patch)
>
> pr_err_once("went there at least one time\n");
>
> (to make sure this code path was tested)
I will do this testing as requested; my current config does include
LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y.
> It might be time to get rid of unix_sk macro for a proper function to
> avoid these kind of errors.
>
> diff --git a/include/net/af_unix.h b/include/net/af_unix.h
> index 4a167b30a12f..cb1b9bbda332 100644
> --- a/include/net/af_unix.h
> +++ b/include/net/af_unix.h
> @@ -63,7 +63,11 @@ struct unix_sock {
> #define UNIX_GC_MAYBE_CYCLE 1
> struct socket_wq peer_wq;
> };
> -#define unix_sk(__sk) ((struct unix_sock *)__sk)
> +
> +static inline struct unix_sock *unix_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> + return (struct unix_sock *)sk;
> +}
>
> #define peer_wait peer_wq.wait
If you'd like, I'll add this to a V3 version of this patch, re-do
testing with your requested config above, and report the results.
> Thanks.
Thank you for the feedback, it is very good.
-Aaron
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
