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 30D3930D419 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 21:43:41 +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=1784843028; cv=none; b=cdl389WZW9FQmY86kpbV8ieoIyUGKKSvlozQZMM6cAb379AmHF0irqt6XHIQ6YsJSpKJ3E9D9AnyEqEOXHqFgF40HbgEiUojiSjFT6zGtz1UFxtNN23NoGP+5Sa9KgwvYVuAml0FkjybuVBK7+k70/QsKhU6vSxjzytBbJ0kBqY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784843028; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yTKD2ylMSXMS8V5nkF1x7X7ZzJuSNZ0OcYC+Nxo8WOM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=uMrlHri+vlE74ugOH1msRmJYIQOZBTCI+nyyimOuPcQCgFArK+l8YEgqJNcEFdDeR3PfWSnce8JbIR3Kv9oM1WINZ33Qzi0MSyXIkFQyECrwKR+uKZhfHU4O4NxgIlA2nHuSZgYDhbf0XAnxUNbwP8Lo5m1XNn9muo4vNSUdezg= 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=ecsbMeCE; 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="ecsbMeCE" 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 1wn1CV-007BZ9-Jz; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:43:31 +0200 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:References: Cc:To:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=T8152CiV8EwT62bqqcPesc6eI+p812MzTD8kzmluCSs=; b=ecsbMeCE6TqrPmgQ1BaLolesB/ 9E80FoXtvEoszlyJYdAGXl/04gVMxwqM5HsnPFfDk6Pqwqr61vwX7apkc8pUYJNPIiJw6mvNvHFTm 6m5UN9nq69bS2fZw3Dz/+lsqaUafsAAylNV7t8sez2cHOCdN5dEcPVn03e35xdrZBO/ZSYJgSeeiQ 6i83sa9+6Yo1qT+PQXgp/wnfDbKXrMyHlmok+M0WXWpjBJ0iHTcumz31Al3wwtHNDvYkQfLvgh666 LVZF/JI8Tj8fmcYB6/h9LfwLdkxY3m5MWcHJPeG+hOYcEwcLB7dlnbiFG9z/KT3gSPASTnsELum0u NR+VZGGw==; Received: from [10.9.9.74] (helo=submission03.runbox) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1wn1CU-0001U9-Th; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:43:31 +0200 Received: by submission03.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.95) id 1wn1CO-0078xw-Br; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:43:24 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:43:23 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Michal Luczaj Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsock: use sock_error() to consume sk_err after connect timeout To: "Nguyen Dinh Phi [SG]" , Stefano Garzarella Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , syzbot+1b2c9c4a0f8708082678@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260719220103.684489-1-phind.uet@gmail.com> <78225425-1ca7-45fb-85cb-9e04f489e68f@gmail.com> <95cd0d4e-58c9-44ab-b94f-fcf57b88583b@rbox.co> <27412e44-ab4b-4dd3-9685-481875683860@gmail.com> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <27412e44-ab4b-4dd3-9685-481875683860@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/23/26 12:26, Nguyen Dinh Phi [SG] wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> Yeah, we need to handle that part better, I think it's a leftover when >>>>> we generalized AF_VSOCK to support more transport than vmci. >>> >>> Speaking of leftovers, I have trouble understanding where does vsock set >>> sk_err on listener sockets anyway. If it doesn't, why vsock_accept() >>> checks for it? >> >> I can't also see where it can be set TBH. Should we remove it ? > > I couldn't find it for listener side too. Removing sk_err handling from vsock_accept() solves the problem, right? thanks, Michal