On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:34:35AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 03:48:22PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > [...] > > > > +out: > > > + if (new_skb) > > > + __skb_queue_tail(&new_queue, new_skb); > > > + > > > + skb_queue_splice(&new_queue, &vvs->rx_queue); > > > > I think the new skbs will also need skb_set_owner_sk_safe(skb, sk) > > when adding to rx_queue? > > IIRC we added it in the rx path, mainily for loopback to pass the ownership > from the tx socket to the rx socket, but here we are already in the rx path, > so the skb will never leave this socket. >
Ah that's right, I stand corrected. There is no sender to leak in this case. > Maybe it's necessary for the eBPF path? Looking through sockmap, I don't think it depends on skb->sk being non-null either (it reassigns owner to the redirect socket anyway using skb_set_owner_r()). Sorry for the false alarm. LGTM. Reviewed-by: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]>
