From: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>

Currently the per-connection announced address counter is never
decreased. When the user-space PM is in use, this just affect
the information exposed via diag/sockopt, but it could still foul
the PM to wrong decision.

Add the missing accounting for the user-space PM's sake.

Fixes: 8b1c94da1e48 ("mptcp: only send RM_ADDR in nl_cmd_remove")
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
---
 net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
index ea9e5817b9e9..b399f2b7a369 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
@@ -1534,16 +1534,25 @@ void mptcp_pm_remove_addrs(struct mptcp_sock *msk, 
struct list_head *rm_list)
 {
        struct mptcp_rm_list alist = { .nr = 0 };
        struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry;
+       int anno_nr = 0;
 
        list_for_each_entry(entry, rm_list, list) {
-               if ((remove_anno_list_by_saddr(msk, &entry->addr) ||
-                    lookup_subflow_by_saddr(&msk->conn_list, &entry->addr)) &&
-                   alist.nr < MPTCP_RM_IDS_MAX)
-                       alist.ids[alist.nr++] = entry->addr.id;
+               if (alist.nr >= MPTCP_RM_IDS_MAX)
+                       break;
+
+               /* only delete if either announced or matching a subflow */
+               if (remove_anno_list_by_saddr(msk, &entry->addr))
+                       anno_nr++;
+               else if (!lookup_subflow_by_saddr(&msk->conn_list,
+                                                 &entry->addr))
+                       continue;
+
+               alist.ids[alist.nr++] = entry->addr.id;
        }
 
        if (alist.nr) {
                spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock);
+               msk->pm.add_addr_signaled -= anno_nr;
                mptcp_pm_remove_addr(msk, &alist);
                spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock);
        }

-- 
2.45.2


Reply via email to