Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 4/8] vsock: make vsock bind reusable

2023-06-23 Thread Stefano Garzarella 

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:05:43PM +, Bobby Eshleman wrote:

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:58:31AM +, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable
> for different bind tables. For use by datagrams in a future patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman 
> ---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++---
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> index ef86765f3765..7a3ca4270446 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> @@ -230,11 +230,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock 
*vsk)
>sock_put(>sk);
> }
>
> -static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
> +  struct list_head *bind_table)
> {
>struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>
> -  list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) {
> +  list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) {
>if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, >local_addr))
>return sk_vsock(vsk);
>
> @@ -247,6 +248,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct 
sockaddr_vm *addr)
>return NULL;
> }
>
> +static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +{
> +  return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr));
> +}
> +
> static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
>  struct sockaddr_vm *dst)
> {
> @@ -646,12 +652,17 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> / SOCKET OPERATIONS /
>
> -static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> -  struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> +   struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
> +   struct list_head *bind_table,
> +   size_t table_size)
> {
>static u32 port;
>struct sockaddr_vm new_addr;
>
> +  if (table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE)
> +  return -1;

Why we need this check now?



If the table_size is not at least VSOCK_HASH_SIZE then the
VSOCK_HASH(addr) used later could overflow the table.

Maybe this really deserves a WARN() and a comment?


Yes, please WARN_ONCE() should be enough.

Stefano

___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 4/8] vsock: make vsock bind reusable

2023-06-22 Thread Stefano Garzarella 

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:58:31AM +, Bobby Eshleman wrote:

This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable
for different bind tables. For use by datagrams in a future patch.

Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman 
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++---
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index ef86765f3765..7a3ca4270446 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -230,11 +230,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock 
*vsk)
sock_put(>sk);
}

-static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
+struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
+   struct list_head *bind_table)
{
struct vsock_sock *vsk;

-   list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) {
+   list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) {
if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, >local_addr))
return sk_vsock(vsk);

@@ -247,6 +248,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct 
sockaddr_vm *addr)
return NULL;
}

+static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
+{
+   return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr));
+}
+
static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
  struct sockaddr_vm *dst)
{
@@ -646,12 +652,17 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)

/ SOCKET OPERATIONS /

-static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
-   struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
+static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
+struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
+struct list_head *bind_table,
+size_t table_size)
{
static u32 port;
struct sockaddr_vm new_addr;

+   if (table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE)
+   return -1;


Why we need this check now?


+
if (!port)
port = get_random_u32_above(LAST_RESERVED_PORT);

@@ -667,7 +678,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,

new_addr.svm_port = port++;

-   if (!__vsock_find_bound_socket(_addr)) {
+   if (!vsock_find_bound_socket_common(_addr,
+   
_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)])) {
found = true;
break;
}
@@ -684,7 +696,8 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
return -EACCES;
}

-   if (__vsock_find_bound_socket(_addr))
+   if (vsock_find_bound_socket_common(_addr,
+  
_table[VSOCK_HASH(addr)]))
return -EADDRINUSE;
}

@@ -696,11 +709,17 @@ static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock 
*vsk,
 * by AF_UNIX.
 */
__vsock_remove_bound(vsk);
-   __vsock_insert_bound(vsock_bound_sockets(>local_addr), vsk);
+   __vsock_insert_bound(_table[VSOCK_HASH(>local_addr)], vsk);

return 0;
}

+static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
+   struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
+{
+   return vsock_bind_common(vsk, addr, vsock_bind_table, VSOCK_HASH_SIZE + 
1);
+}
+
static int __vsock_bind_dgram(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
  struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
{

--
2.30.2



The rest seems okay to me, but I agree with Simon's suggestion.

Stefano

___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization