Re: [PATCH net v4 3/3] vsock/bpf: Fix bpf recvmsg() racing transport reassignment
From: Michal Luczaj
Date: Thu Mar 20 2025 - 08:11:38 EST
On 3/19/25 23:18, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:52:25AM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Signal delivery during connect() may lead to a disconnect of an already
>> established socket. That involves removing socket from any sockmap and
>> resetting state to SS_UNCONNECTED. While it correctly restores socket's
>> proto, a call to vsock_bpf_recvmsg() might have been already under way in
>> another thread. If the connect()ing thread reassigns the vsock transport to
>> NULL, the recvmsg()ing thread may trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE.
>>
*THREAD 1* *THREAD 2*
>> connect
>> / state = SS_CONNECTED /
>> sock_map_update_elem
>> vsock_bpf_recvmsg
>> psock = sk_psock_get()
>> lock sk
>> if signal_pending
>> unhash
>> sock_map_remove_links
>
> So vsock's ->recvmsg() should be restored after this, right? Then how is
> vsock_bpf_recvmsg() called afterward?
I'm not sure I understand the question, so I've added a header above: those
are 2 parallel flows of execution. vsock_bpf_recvmsg() wasn't called
afterwards. It was called before sock_map_remove_links(). Note that at the
time of sock_map_remove_links() (in T1), vsock_bpf_recvmsg() is still
executing (in T2).
>> state = SS_UNCONNECTED
>> release sk
>>
>> connect
>> transport = NULL
>> lock sk
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!vsk->transport)
>>
>
> And I am wondering why we need to WARN here since we can handle this error
> case correctly?
The WARN and transport check are here for defensive measures, and to state
a contract.
But I think I get your point. If we accept for a fact of life that BPF code
should be able to handle transport disappearing - then WARN can be removed
(while keeping the check) and this patch can be dropped.
My aim, instead, was to keep things consistent. By which I mean sticking to
the conditions expressed in vsock_bpf_update_proto() as invariants; so that
vsock with a psock is guaranteed to have transport assigned.