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 A4A4C4AD4D7; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:28:09 +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=1790285293; cv=none; b=Ls5zYyiXdX3b6WOsoZieXMoy87nTEgdgKKc6ObnqkjZ2uQNzpCdks0huSCPuPR6sUGMjUnKC+FKLLbCrjENky0JiWhJPQkbHTvqq7oCi4bNWAzKbJq+93pxqwOVswqlXQycJgnc1DpCaueKaqSh6/oxDtz6uTxRv9GbdPsJeVLA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790285293; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S5p/lNPC0mG0bGwmIlQLsdpVl8nS+nYRBT2t+Eh2Dac=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=HKd82DwLvcVxn1B8JUpAwhIIEJNYmm+3hkWrZ1idVy0glvjXBGdPINZF58JZHw7P79HFls2ELPBCF5clwcQ984Q86gog3LsmcMb8tdLobJKLPvsr2OJT1OHbe+0UCKj3WXZoa5kZ5o6tk1EpYsN7Bfm3L48SYtOQRNHZW83DkKg= 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=SrHWO8pP; 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="SrHWO8pP" 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 1x9qz6-00CkIW-2U; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:28:04 +0200 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:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=FYPB90yl8vkL2P4192GPkRB2M0vxyTrX0YakhJCZa+A=; b=SrHWO8pP2owdgPzako/FtuOleE XRToSVb0rQ2p8XkMtMcJrOO31O3GIaaaFFSt8hpFF20nXdwU6m/bS1oxiWs7VuCA83gIAJNl7vMYc CFT/S4gjs5zFoqT+Oj7AZd+oNKXQitkRFqDdBE+8Hc6vIw1xWF6Cc9rkkjpYACh1yrI6r9FOPENP7 nxFlAPVuLpBtEU9z3J4Su9IimHpVIVEweVYRZXU6VNWVhza6wdPEFFCTvGHaDmJ/hPJOm5O/vsgPf rKNwulE3bNkW4kzgqEGGb5SQlNpD1NVJkN2ybnS7+1t4MKHo70TmD56l1GOV0e0gUG4bXzHqDHdKl Dj32tI2Q==; Received: from [10.9.9.72] (helo=submission01.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1x9qz0-0006Ny-MD; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:58 +0200 Received: by submission01.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.95) id 1x9qyl-0058JF-3j; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:43 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:42 +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 net v3 5/8] vsock: treat TCP_CLOSING as once-established To: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowangio@gmail.com, eperezma@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imv4bel@gmail.com References: <20260922-vsock-connect-reset-closing-v3-5-78907b8200d4@rbox.co> <179025570581.2160803.6664724141686428896@kernel.org> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <179025570581.2160803.6664724141686428896@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/24/26 15:15, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote: > [Severity: Low] > This isn't a bug, but the new short circuit lists only TCP_ESTABLISHED and > TCP_CLOSING as "once established", while an established socket can also be > taken straight to TCP_CLOSE by a transport event while connect() is > scheduled out: > ... > The cleanup side of that case is covered by the follow-up patch in this > series, "vsock: handle socket bricking due to transport event", which adds > an early return to vsock_unconnected_reset() for sock->state == > SS_CONNECTED or SS_DISCONNECTING, and neither of the two transport paths > above modifies sk->sk_socket->state. > > Is the remaining difference in the connect() return value for the TCP_CLOSE > case the intended behaviour? Should I use a specific return value for a socket that got bricked by transport event? >> @@ -1877,8 +1881,7 @@ static int vsock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr_unsized *addr, >> out_wait: >> finish_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait); >> out_reset: >> - if (err) >> - vsock_unconnected_reset(sk); >> + vsock_unconnected_reset(sk); > > [Severity: High] > With this call now unconditional, can a VMCI detach during the handshake > turn this cleanup into a silent no-op plus a warning backtrace? Addresses in comments to patch #3.