From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit04.runbox.com (mailtransmit04.runbox.com [185.226.149.37]) (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 17FA62D8DB0; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769187175; cv=none; b=hc/k6IsGwhGA7lxPiWZ6s5MxYARbaH+34QDx1MwGcEXqfiCqPeZkqub6uc3ZFMYQ6JnS1q3mUnpHQdEkX6M9a6YRoqglJU6UAPUhJb0SDLYhcoTCTEH6aev2dG0KhNvBQcJkWENPcEyORkw1TZhh9/kMraszCb7v+mfb14+enak= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769187175; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QQNvnGxUaxh9NMq2l8I37svC9XpWKBuEcZtJHkVSsiY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=T5sQArEn2DCX3b2HTqb1dbm+Y6iDApQDmp69qFzTesGsecF0pwAcmQn8FScpVfYvmJHeCXgPSUTscZSGIwZEhh5zDIF7uYMvSuaZEqs7xEbSZqYy9XbvR8AItyrQyIVxrrndOWjaqW+UqmAQCzm+24cNW9PVBBRkYwRoRMtSSqA= 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=X2e2cBUk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 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="X2e2cBUk" Received: from mailtransmit02.runbox ([10.9.9.162] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit04.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1vjKOu-00FEMW-VK; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:52:48 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=lveKEYj3xW9x8OtJnfcIghmFfofT+bfpgJirVpnBRiU=; b=X2e2cBUkdY7sGQgayQvvGqFZ8P L4Nfb26f7eUf9UwjeAHkrADJgZzzkakpI4uuCy0h+614aiL3kUsmmD/ibsbVfOIkiA99htZwOF1LV afbQA2mlfLv40W+IkmLw6OfzAr73QQKeTupopOfeDxf1V1vDFHo9xtrlqtNfvkXs5dBMRYKm3flea IV6pOIamq7iYkFNAR20yDatRblXW3upvyQzmRpoGZjsPtZB+tGMjnf5SLNUO5iRWL1JwNBb7K//KR LsRMZNddyoXJvt47+hZy2AslWbrC5kNbhOzuCPjOak8vG9LWZlnijBvtZ9+kGALWAuPwq6N0TGBH8 bBl9Jx6w==; Received: from [10.9.9.74] (helo=submission03.runbox) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1vjKOu-0005hw-Hu; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:52:48 +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 1vjKOn-004Ea7-L1; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:52:41 +0100 Message-ID: <4feef462-95db-4c88-8dec-eb9ff89ede1b@rbox.co> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:52:40 +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 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> <06936b55-b359-4e3d-bec0-b157ca32d237@rbox.co> <69a3d223-dd95-43df-af3a-522968d6b850@rbox.co> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB From: Michal Luczaj In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/24/25 12:49, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 10:46:22PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> On 11/21/25 10:21, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:12:20PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> cool, so if it's only that, maybe is worth adding. >> >> Ok, there it is: >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251123-vsock_test-linger-lockdep-warn-v1-1-4b1edf9d8cdc@rbox.co/ > > Great! > >> >> And circling back to [1], let me know if you think it's worth adding to the >> suit. I guess it would test the case #2 from [2], but it'd take another 2s > > If you think it is better to put them in vsock tests, instead of bpf, > it's fine by me. 2s more is okay IMO. OK, here's a followup: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260123-selftest-signal-on-connect-v1-0-b0256e7025b6@rbox.co/ [...] >> [1]: >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/fjy4jaww6xualdudevfuyoavnrbu45cg4d7erv4rttde363xfc@nahglijbl2eg/ >> [2]: >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251119-vsock-interrupted-connect-v2-1-70734cf1233f@rbox.co/