On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:12:18PM +0000, Matt Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:46 +0200, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:46:04AM +0000, Matt Bennett wrote:
> > > I don't know why the code isn't like the following anyway.
> > >
> > > -if (sk->sk_state & (PPPOX_CONNECTED | PPPOX_BOUND | PPPOX_ZOMBIE)) {
> > > +if (po->pppoe_dev) {
> > > dev_put(po->pppoe_dev);
> > > po->pppoe_dev = NULL;
> > > }
> > I was thinking about that same approach. pppoe_release() is the only
> > function making that assumption. Other parts of the code seem to only
> > require that PPPOX_CONNECTED => pppoe_dev != NULL.
> >
> > But I think the original condition was valid. Adding PPPOX_ZOMBIE into
> > the test and resetting pppoe_dev upon reception of PADT have changed the
> > relationship between sk_state and pppoe_dev, which is where the problem
> > stands.
> Yes originally the condition was valid. But I think the issue is plain
> to see when you look at the comment beside PPPOX_ZOMBIE declared in the
> enum.
>
> PPPOX_ZOMBIE = 8, /* dead, but still bound to ppp device */
>
> We have seen in the situation we have described previously that we can
> be in this state without being bound to the ppp device.
>
> In my opinion the entire logic around
> pppoe_disc_rcv()/pppoe_unbind_sock_work() looks wrong and I agree we
> should do what you suggested a few emails back.
>
> i.e in pppoe_disc_rcv():
>
> if (po) {
> struct sock *sk = sk_pppox(po);
>
> - bh_lock_sock(sk);
> -
> - /* If the user has locked the socket, just ignore
> - * the packet. With the way two rcv protocols hook into
> - * one socket family type, we cannot (easily) distinguish
> - * what kind of SKB it is during backlog rcv.
> - */
> - if (sock_owned_by_user(sk) == 0) {
> - /* We're no longer connect at the PPPOE layer,
> - * and must wait for ppp channel to disconnect us.
> - */
> - sk->sk_state = PPPOX_ZOMBIE;
> - }
> -
> - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> if (!schedule_work(&po->proto.pppoe.padt_work))
> sock_put(sk);
> }
>
Yes, with the introduction of pppoe_unbind_sock_work(), setting
PPPOX_ZOMBIE shouldn't be required anymore.
> Subsequently the PPPOX_ZOMBIE state can be completely removed?
>
Yes, this is the last place where PPPOX_ZOMBIE can be set.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
