Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:48:32 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:52:00 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > > > Alternatively work is done if sock is closed again. Anyway ctx is reset > > > > under sock's callback lock in write mode. > > > > > > > > --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c > > > > +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c > > > > @@ -295,6 +295,8 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct so > > > > long timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, 0); > > > > bool free_ctx; > > > > > > > > + if (!ctx) > > > > + return; > > > > if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW) > > > > tls_sw_cancel_work_tx(ctx); > > > > > > That's no bueno, the real socket's close will never get called. > > > > Seems when we refactored BPF side we dropped the check for ULP on one > > path so I'll add that back now. It would be nice and seems we are > > getting closer now that tls side is a bit more dynamic if the ordering > > didn't matter. > > We'd probably need some more generic way of communicating the changes > in sk_proto stack, e.g. by moving the update into one of sk_proto > callbacks? but yes. > > > diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c > > index 1330a7442e5b..30d11558740e 100644 > > --- a/net/core/sock_map.c > > +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c > > @@ -666,6 +666,8 @@ static int sock_hash_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, > > void *key, > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held()); > > if (unlikely(flags > BPF_EXIST)) > > return -EINVAL; > > + if (unlikely(icsk->icsk_ulp_data)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > link = sk_psock_init_link(); > > if (!link) > > Thanks! That looks good, if you feel like submitting officially feel > free to add my Reviewed-by!
I'll send it out this evening after running the selftests. .John
