From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit05.runbox.com (mailtransmit05.runbox.com [185.226.149.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD0629BD81 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 21:12:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763673166; cv=none; b=XRv72pGGS2T1rh4J9SBQM84vs3CcawSdK55mTqnVFiQ5/armbLGOrvUJcX4MfUraUB40Lp7dN5Qp57FkJdhYcpHzwQKzYfnheY7WpNI7bNIboDrsjWg6CiKOPCnxIV2zxMYt7Xzkil3qwn2MivPVKmfk8LyqJ8tJHMcZC1DjzTY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763673166; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pOkFFhPWEt469H/xWxXlh75e0/pRvG2o41P/KfhMKHY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=G+yKd2YHStrp3FVEQNLuIZA8g6H4BvIfS4FNl6YhfrXCESmZUaCMBbAmVeNHlKZhS9Ypcckx8ZqCRiT8K8K3wxrARbLOYgPRnijbmsGwCEADxe5Y6MY0QBVecvupf9FoHGWzOhlUAtB/CsjryooniCpF+H8IVqxTki+xoPKL5gg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b=I8Bi1f9h; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b="I8Bi1f9h" Received: from mailtransmit03.runbox ([10.9.9.163] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit05.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1vMBxD-009i7v-1B; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 22:12:35 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Cc:To:From:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=m0BcLIFhPMM1vgYjkTG+EbnOTh4Iaz6u3ClLB7W2+dg=; b=I8Bi1f9hDBUu6aeJb82SJ0o4rn 11v31+9W14L3ug8yFuBxypzT+mPK8PeUdJHA1+JX/zJYUhKnsdaoQ+n2ow3WuDGDf9HfA409O5PZ6 zMhBEhj7FOxvBgMlJJUpzA6CqneFVJRIc1V2RqkCGP9B10q+za8ZF7ucACWOWnKmvBhEu21CVDQ0k mWRCuJsrH6vT12nNO3D/SoWgq4q30OwhF/OMT20pMkLzMm8QvGP2afxE/Gx2smtFdS3q9SBuOxprA 80TKbB0vIXyci3i8NtLmC28tC/+cjBCbONiwE3qjbMGujEgskLs16A4nPTme3TKoNkxtKPLb3QDu/ pDQXqWFw==; Received: from [10.9.9.74] (helo=submission03.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1vMBxC-0008QC-65; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 22:12:34 +0100 Received: by submission03.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.93) id 1vMBwz-000Sx6-Te; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 22:12:22 +0100 Message-ID: <06936b55-b359-4e3d-bec0-b157ca32d237@rbox.co> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 22:12:20 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already established From: Michal Luczaj To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20251117-vsock-interrupted-connect-v1-1-bc021e907c3f@rbox.co> <98e2ac89-34e9-42d9-bfcf-e81e7a04504d@rbox.co> <09c6de68-06aa-404d-9753-907eab61b9ab@rbox.co> <663yvkk2sh5lesfvdeerlca567xb64qbwih52bxjftob3umsah@eamuykmarrfr> <1b2255c7-0e97-4b37-b7ab-e13e90b7b0b9@rbox.co> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <1b2255c7-0e97-4b37-b7ab-e13e90b7b0b9@rbox.co> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/19/25 20:52, Michal Luczaj wrote: > ... > To follow up, should I add a version of syzkaller's lockdep warning repro > to vsock test suite? In theory it could test this fix here as well, but in > practice the race window is small and hitting it (the brute way) takes > prohibitively long. Replying to self to add more data. After reverting f7c877e75352 ("vsock: fix lock inversion in vsock_assign_transport()") 002541ef650b ("vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already established") adding --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c @@ -2014,6 +2014,7 @@ static void test_stream_transport_change_client(const struct test_opts *opts) perror("socket"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } + enable_so_linger(s, 1); ret = connect(s, (struct sockaddr *)&sa, sizeof(sa)); /* The connect can fail due to signals coming from the is enough for vsock_test to trigger the lockdep warning syzkaller found.