On 3/6/26 06:44, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 3:32 PM Michal Luczaj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Instead of repeating the same (un)locking pattern, reuse >> sock_map_sk_{acquire,release}(). This centralizes the code and makes it >> easier to adapt sockmap to af_unix-specific locking. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <[email protected]> >> --- >> net/core/sock_map.c | 21 +++++++-------------- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c >> index 02a68be3002a..7ba6a7f24ccd 100644 >> --- a/net/core/sock_map.c >> +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c >> @@ -353,11 +353,9 @@ static void sock_map_free(struct bpf_map *map) >> sk = xchg(psk, NULL); >> if (sk) { >> sock_hold(sk); >> - lock_sock(sk); >> - rcu_read_lock(); >> + sock_map_sk_acquire(sk); >> sock_map_unref(sk, psk); >> - rcu_read_unlock(); >> - release_sock(sk); >> + sock_map_sk_release(sk); >> sock_put(sk); >> } >> } >> @@ -1176,11 +1174,9 @@ static void sock_hash_free(struct bpf_map *map) >> */ >> hlist_for_each_entry_safe(elem, node, &unlink_list, node) { >> hlist_del(&elem->node); >> - lock_sock(elem->sk); >> - rcu_read_lock(); >> + sock_map_sk_acquire(elem->sk); >> sock_map_unref(elem->sk, elem); >> - rcu_read_unlock(); >> - release_sock(elem->sk); >> + sock_map_sk_release(elem->sk); >> sock_put(elem->sk); >> sock_hash_free_elem(htab, elem); >> } >> @@ -1676,8 +1672,7 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout) >> void (*saved_close)(struct sock *sk, long timeout); >> struct sk_psock *psock; >> >> - lock_sock(sk); >> - rcu_read_lock(); >> + sock_map_sk_acquire(sk); >> psock = sk_psock(sk); >> if (likely(psock)) { >> saved_close = psock->saved_close; >> @@ -1685,16 +1680,14 @@ void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout) >> psock = sk_psock_get(sk); >> if (unlikely(!psock)) >> goto no_psock; >> - rcu_read_unlock(); >> sk_psock_stop(psock); >> - release_sock(sk); >> + sock_map_sk_release(sk); > > I think sk_psock_stop() was intentionally put outside > of rcu_read_lock() to not extend the grace period > unnecessarily. e.g. while + __sk_msg_free(). > > Maybe add __sock_map_sk_release() without > rcu_read_unlock() ?
How about dropping this patch completely? The more I stare at it, I see no reason why af_unix state lock would matter in any of these places.
