At 2017-08-09 03:45:53, "Cong Wang" <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Gao Feng <gfree.w...@vip.163.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get you clearly. Why the sock_hold() isn't helpful?
>
>I already told you, the dereference happends before sock_hold().
>
> sock = rcu_dereference(callid_sock[call_id]);
> if (sock) {
> opt = &sock->proto.pptp;
> if (opt->dst_addr.sin_addr.s_addr != s_addr) <=== HERE
> sock = NULL;
> else
> sock_hold(sk_pppox(sock));
> }
>
>If we don't wait for readers properly, sock could be freed at the
>same time when deference it.
Maybe I didn't show my explanation clearly.
I think it won't happen as I mentioned in the last email.
Because the pptp_release invokes the synchronize_rcu to make sure it, and
actually there is no one which would invoke del_chan except pptp_release.
It is guaranteed by that the pptp_release doesn't put the sock refcnt until
complete all cleanup include marking sk_state as PPPOX_DEAD.
In other words, even though the pptp_release is not the last user of this sock,
the other one wouldn't invoke del_chan in pptp_sock_destruct.
Because the condition "!(sk->sk_state & PPPOX_DEAD)" must be false.
As summary, the del_chan and pppox_unbind_sock in pptp_sock_destruct are
unnecessary.
And it even brings confusing.
Best Regards
Feng
>
>> The pptp_release invokes synchronize_rcu after del_chan, it could make sure
>> the others has increased the sock refcnt if necessary
>> and the lookup is over.
>> There is no one could get the sock after synchronize_rcu in pptp_release.
>
>
>If this were true, then this code in pptp_sock_destruct()
>would be unneeded:
>
> if (!(sk->sk_state & PPPOX_DEAD)) {
> del_chan(pppox_sk(sk));
> pppox_unbind_sock(sk);
> }
>
>
>>
>>
>> But I think about another problem.
>> It seems the pptp_sock_destruct should not invoke del_chan and
>> pppox_unbind_sock.
>> Because when the sock refcnt is 0, the pptp_release must have be invoked
>> already.
>>
>
>
>I don't know. Looks like sock_orphan() is only called
>in pptp_release(), but I am not sure if there is a case
>we call sock destructor before release.
>
>Also note, this socket is very special, it doesn't support
>poll(), sendmsg() or recvmsg()..
