On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:38:27PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:38:03PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> >> > Hi Josh, >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:33:45AM -0800, Josh Snyder wrote: >> >> > > I was also puzzled that binding succeeded. Looking into the code paths >> >> > > involved, in inet_csk_get_port, we quickly goto have_snum. From >> >> > > there, we end >> >> > > up dropping into tb_found. Since !hlist_empty(&tb->owners), we end up >> >> > > checking >> >> > > that (tb->fastreuseport > 0 && sk->sk_reuseport && >> >> > > uid_eq(tb->fastuid, uid)). >> >> > > This test passes, so we goto success and bind. >> >> > > >> >> > > Crucially, we are checking the fastreuseport field on the >> >> > > inet_bind_bucket, and >> >> > > not the sk_reuseport variable on the other sockets in the bucket. >> >> > > Since this >> >> > > bit is set based on sk_reuseport at the time the first socket binds >> >> > > (see >> >> > > tb_not_found), I can see no reason why sockets need to keep >> >> > > SO_REUSEPORT set >> >> > > beyond initial binding. >> >> > > >> >> > > Given this, I believe Willy's patch elegantly solves the problem at >> >> > > hand. >> >> > >> >> > Great, thanks for your in-depth explanation. >> >> > >> >> > Eric, do you think that this patch may be acceptable material for next >> >> > merge window (given that it's not a fix per-se) ? If so I'll resubmit >> >> > later. >> >> >> >> I need to check with Craig Gallek, because he was about to upstream a >> >> change to make SO_REUSEPORT more scalable & sexy (like having an [e]BPF >> >> filter to perform the selection in an array of sockets) >> >
Hi All, I apologize for not properly following up on this. I had the impression that we did not want to merge my original patch and then I also noticed that it fails to keep the hash consistent. Recently, I read the follow ups on it as well as Willy's patch/proposals. Is there any update on Willy's SO_REUSEPORT patch? IMHO, it solves the problem and it is simpler than adding new sock option. Best Regards, Tolga Ceylan
