| Message ID | 9bfd982aa08d39d84846b7fa655230dc11e91f1c.1606716547.git.geliangtang@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ADD_ADDR: ports support | expand |
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > listened for the connection. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > --- > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > struct list_head list; > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > struct rcu_head rcu; > + struct socket *lsk; Two things to fix up: Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are freed. lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > }; > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > } > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > +{ > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > + struct socket *ssock; > + int backlog = 20; Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high connection rate, or worth a sysctl? Thanks, Mat > + int err; > + > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > + if (err) > + return err; > + > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > + if (!msk) { > + err = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > + if (!ssock) { > + err = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > + if (err) { > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > + goto out; > + } > + > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > + if (err) { > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > + goto out; > + } > + > + return 0; > + > +out: > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > + return err; > +} > + > static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > { > struct nlattr *attr = info->attrs[MPTCP_PM_ATTR_ADDR]; > @@ -750,9 +798,19 @@ static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > } > > *entry = addr; > + if (entry->addr.port) { > + ret = mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(skb->sk, entry); > + if (ret) { > + GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "create listen socket error"); > + kfree(entry); > + return ret; > + } > + } > ret = mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr(pernet, entry); > if (ret < 0) { > GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "too many addresses or duplicate one"); > + if (entry->lsk) > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > kfree(entry); > return ret; > } > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > index 4c36969873b9..5e464dfc0f6f 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void __mptcp_check_send_data_fin(struct sock *sk); > * completed yet or has failed, return the subflow socket. > * Otherwise return NULL. > */ > -static struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > { > if (!msk->subflow || READ_ONCE(msk->can_ack)) > return NULL; > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > index 9d8f01aac91c..ec179f3a6b4b 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > @@ -466,11 +466,14 @@ void mptcp_subflow_shutdown(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, int how); > void __mptcp_close_ssk(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, > struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow); > void mptcp_subflow_reset(struct sock *ssk); > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk); > > /* called with sk socket lock held */ > int __mptcp_subflow_connect(struct sock *sk, const struct mptcp_addr_info *loc, > const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote); > int mptcp_subflow_create_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket **new_sock); > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr); > > static inline void mptcp_subflow_tcp_fallback(struct sock *sk, > struct mptcp_subflow_context *ctx) > diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > index 96c585f003f8..43cc5e2c3234 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c > +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > @@ -1035,8 +1035,8 @@ void mptcpv6_handle_mapped(struct sock *sk, bool mapped) > } > #endif > > -static void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > - struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > { > memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr)); > addr->ss_family = info->family; > -- > 2.26.2 -- Mat Martineau Intel
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > listened for the connection. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > --- > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > Another thing I don't think we discussed yet with this "extra listening socket" approach: what do we do about socket options? Are there any options we should be concerned about on this listening socket? Should SO_REUSEADDR be set by default? -- Mat Martineau Intel
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 17:47 -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > listened for the connection. > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > --- > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Another thing I don't think we discussed yet with this "extra listening > socket" approach: what do we do about socket options? Good point! > > Are there any options we should be concerned about on this listening > socket? Should SO_REUSEADDR be set by default? I think we should _not_ set SO_REUSEADDR. Perhaps we should allow the netlink APIs to additionally call setsockopt() on this socket with arguments specified via the netlink API itselfs, but it looks a bit overkill at this stage ?!? Paolo
Hi Paolo, Mat, On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:36:08PM -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > listened for the connection. > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > --- > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > > struct list_head list; > > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > + struct socket *lsk; > > Two things to fix up: > > Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are > freed. > > lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > > > }; > > > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > > } > > > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > > +{ > > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > + struct socket *ssock; > > + int backlog = 20; > > Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high > connection rate, or worth a sysctl? > > Thanks, > > Mat > > > + int err; > > + > > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > > + if (!msk) { > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > > + if (!ssock) { > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > > + if (err) { > > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > > + if (err) { > > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > + > > +out: > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); I need some help about releasing the MPTCP type listening socket. When I use "sock_release(entry->lsk)" to release it, I'll get a deadlock warning like this: ---- [ 55.789592] ============================================ [ 55.789593] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 55.789594] 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 Not tainted [ 55.789595] -------------------------------------------- [ 55.789596] pm_nl_ctl/5583 is trying to acquire lock: [ 55.789597] ffff9ff9883cb960 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 [ 55.789604] but task is already holding lock: [ 55.789605] ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 [ 55.789608] other info that might help us debug this: [ 55.789609] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 55.789610] CPU0 [ 55.789610] ---- [ 55.789611] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); [ 55.789613] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); [ 55.789614] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 55.789615] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 55.789616] 3 locks held by pm_nl_ctl/5583: [ 55.789617] #0: ffffffff8c5f9af0 (cb_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: genl_rcv+0x15/0x40 [ 55.789621] #1: ffffffff8c5f9b88 (genl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: genl_rcv_msg+0xf5/0x1c0 [ 55.789625] #2: ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 [ 55.789629] stack backtrace: [ 55.789631] CPU: 1 PID: 5583 Comm: pm_nl_ctl Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 [ 55.789632] Hardware name: TIMI Mi Laptop Pro 15/TM1905, BIOS XMACM500P0301 04/08/2020 [ 55.789633] Call Trace: [ 55.789637] dump_stack+0x8b/0xb0 [ 55.789639] __lock_acquire.cold+0x159/0x2ab [ 55.789643] ? debug_object_assert_init+0x4b/0x130 [ 55.789646] lock_acquire+0x116/0x370 [ 55.789648] ? __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 [ 55.789651] ? lock_sock_nested+0x51/0x90 [ 55.789653] lock_sock_nested+0x70/0x90 [ 55.789655] ? __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 [ 55.789657] __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 [ 55.789659] __mptcp_destroy_sock+0x119/0x210 [ 55.789661] mptcp_close+0x281/0x320 [ 55.789663] inet_release+0x99/0xa8 [ 55.789665] sock_release+0x20/0x70 [ 55.789667] mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr+0x27c/0x2e0 [ 55.789670] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xcd/0x110 [ 55.789675] genl_rcv_msg+0xce/0x1c0 [ 55.789677] ? mptcp_nl_cmd_get_limits+0x260/0x260 [ 55.789680] ? genl_get_cmd+0xd0/0xd0 [ 55.789683] netlink_rcv_skb+0x50/0xf0 [ 55.789687] genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 [ 55.789688] netlink_unicast+0x16d/0x230 [ 55.789690] netlink_sendmsg+0x23f/0x460 [ 55.789693] sock_sendmsg+0x5e/0x60 [ 55.789694] __sys_sendto+0xf1/0x160 [ 55.789698] ? do_user_addr_fault+0x215/0x440 [ 55.789701] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xff/0x180 [ 55.789702] __x64_sys_sendto+0x25/0x30 [ 55.789704] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 [ 55.789707] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 55.789709] RIP: 0033:0x7fca52863efa [ 55.789710] Code: d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b8 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 41 89 ca 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 15 b8 2c 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 76 c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 48 83 ec 30 44 89 4c [ 55.789712] RSP: 002b:00007ffc6a45db88 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002c [ 55.789714] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffc6a45dbf0 RCX: 00007fca52863efa [ 55.789715] RDX: 0000000000000038 RSI: 00007ffc6a45dbf0 RDI: 0000000000000003 [ 55.789716] RBP: 0000000000000038 R08: 00007ffc6a45db94 R09: 000000000000000c [ 55.789717] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 [ 55.789718] R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 00007ffc6a45e170 R15: 00007ffc6a45e138 [ 55.789751] MPTCP: msk=000000001cb8c5f2 [ 55.798357] MPTCP: subflow=0000000008e7e757 ---- I spent a few days trying to solve this problem, but it didn't go well. Please give some suggestions about it, thanks very much. -Geliang > > + return err; > > +} > > + > > static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > { > > struct nlattr *attr = info->attrs[MPTCP_PM_ATTR_ADDR]; > > @@ -750,9 +798,19 @@ static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > } > > > > *entry = addr; > > + if (entry->addr.port) { > > + ret = mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(skb->sk, entry); > > + if (ret) { > > + GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "create listen socket error"); > > + kfree(entry); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + } > > ret = mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr(pernet, entry); > > if (ret < 0) { > > GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "too many addresses or duplicate one"); > > + if (entry->lsk) > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > kfree(entry); > > return ret; > > } > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > index 4c36969873b9..5e464dfc0f6f 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void __mptcp_check_send_data_fin(struct sock *sk); > > * completed yet or has failed, return the subflow socket. > > * Otherwise return NULL. > > */ > > -static struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > { > > if (!msk->subflow || READ_ONCE(msk->can_ack)) > > return NULL; > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > index 9d8f01aac91c..ec179f3a6b4b 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > @@ -466,11 +466,14 @@ void mptcp_subflow_shutdown(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, int how); > > void __mptcp_close_ssk(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, > > struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow); > > void mptcp_subflow_reset(struct sock *ssk); > > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk); > > > > /* called with sk socket lock held */ > > int __mptcp_subflow_connect(struct sock *sk, const struct mptcp_addr_info *loc, > > const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote); > > int mptcp_subflow_create_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket **new_sock); > > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr); > > > > static inline void mptcp_subflow_tcp_fallback(struct sock *sk, > > struct mptcp_subflow_context *ctx) > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > index 96c585f003f8..43cc5e2c3234 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > @@ -1035,8 +1035,8 @@ void mptcpv6_handle_mapped(struct sock *sk, bool mapped) > > } > > #endif > > > > -static void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > - struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > > { > > memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr)); > > addr->ss_family = info->family; > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > -- > Mat Martineau > Intel
Hello, On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 14:30 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:36:08PM -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > > listened for the connection. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > > > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > > > struct list_head list; > > > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > > + struct socket *lsk; > > > > Two things to fix up: > > > > Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are > > freed. > > > > lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > > > > > }; > > > > > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > > > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > > > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > > > } > > > > > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > > > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > > > +{ > > > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > > + struct socket *ssock; > > > + int backlog = 20; > > > > Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high > > connection rate, or worth a sysctl? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mat > > > > > + int err; > > > + > > > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > > > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > > > + if (err) > > > + return err; > > > + > > > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > > > + if (!msk) { > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > > > + if (!ssock) { > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > > > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > > > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > > > + if (err) { > > > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > > > + if (err) { > > > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > +out: > > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > I need some help about releasing the MPTCP type listening socket. When I > use "sock_release(entry->lsk)" to release it, I'll get a deadlock warning > like this: > > ---- > > [ 55.789592] ============================================ > [ 55.789593] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > [ 55.789594] 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 Not tainted > [ 55.789595] -------------------------------------------- > [ 55.789596] pm_nl_ctl/5583 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 55.789597] ffff9ff9883cb960 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > [ 55.789604] > but task is already holding lock: > [ 55.789605] ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 > [ 55.789608] > other info that might help us debug this: > [ 55.789609] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > [ 55.789610] CPU0 > [ 55.789610] ---- > [ 55.789611] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > [ 55.789613] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > [ 55.789614] > *** DEADLOCK *** > > [ 55.789615] May be due to missing lock nesting notation > > [ 55.789616] 3 locks held by pm_nl_ctl/5583: > [ 55.789617] #0: ffffffff8c5f9af0 (cb_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: genl_rcv+0x15/0x40 > [ 55.789621] #1: ffffffff8c5f9b88 (genl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: genl_rcv_msg+0xf5/0x1c0 > [ 55.789625] #2: ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 > [ 55.789629] > stack backtrace: > [ 55.789631] CPU: 1 PID: 5583 Comm: pm_nl_ctl Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 > [ 55.789632] Hardware name: TIMI Mi Laptop Pro 15/TM1905, BIOS XMACM500P0301 04/08/2020 > [ 55.789633] Call Trace: > [ 55.789637] dump_stack+0x8b/0xb0 > [ 55.789639] __lock_acquire.cold+0x159/0x2ab > [ 55.789643] ? debug_object_assert_init+0x4b/0x130 > [ 55.789646] lock_acquire+0x116/0x370 > [ 55.789648] ? __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > [ 55.789651] ? lock_sock_nested+0x51/0x90 > [ 55.789653] lock_sock_nested+0x70/0x90 > [ 55.789655] ? __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > [ 55.789657] __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > [ 55.789659] __mptcp_destroy_sock+0x119/0x210 > [ 55.789661] mptcp_close+0x281/0x320 > [ 55.789663] inet_release+0x99/0xa8 > [ 55.789665] sock_release+0x20/0x70 > [ 55.789667] mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr+0x27c/0x2e0 > [ 55.789670] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xcd/0x110 > [ 55.789675] genl_rcv_msg+0xce/0x1c0 > [ 55.789677] ? mptcp_nl_cmd_get_limits+0x260/0x260 > [ 55.789680] ? genl_get_cmd+0xd0/0xd0 > [ 55.789683] netlink_rcv_skb+0x50/0xf0 > [ 55.789687] genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 > [ 55.789688] netlink_unicast+0x16d/0x230 > [ 55.789690] netlink_sendmsg+0x23f/0x460 > [ 55.789693] sock_sendmsg+0x5e/0x60 > [ 55.789694] __sys_sendto+0xf1/0x160 > [ 55.789698] ? do_user_addr_fault+0x215/0x440 > [ 55.789701] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xff/0x180 > [ 55.789702] __x64_sys_sendto+0x25/0x30 > [ 55.789704] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 > [ 55.789707] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 > [ 55.789709] RIP: 0033:0x7fca52863efa > [ 55.789710] Code: d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b8 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 41 89 ca 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 15 b8 2c 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 76 c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 48 83 ec 30 44 89 4c > [ 55.789712] RSP: 002b:00007ffc6a45db88 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002c > [ 55.789714] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffc6a45dbf0 RCX: 00007fca52863efa > [ 55.789715] RDX: 0000000000000038 RSI: 00007ffc6a45dbf0 RDI: 0000000000000003 > [ 55.789716] RBP: 0000000000000038 R08: 00007ffc6a45db94 R09: 000000000000000c > [ 55.789717] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 > [ 55.789718] R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 00007ffc6a45e170 R15: 00007ffc6a45e138 > [ 55.789751] MPTCP: msk=000000001cb8c5f2 > [ 55.798357] MPTCP: subflow=0000000008e7e757 > > ---- > > I spent a few days trying to solve this problem, but it didn't go well. > Please give some suggestions about it, thanks very much. I'll try to have a look at this tomorrow. I'm sorry, I'm unable to get there earlier. Cheers, Paolo
Hi Mat, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com> 于2020年12月4日周五 上午9:36写道： > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > listened for the connection. > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > --- > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > > struct list_head list; > > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > + struct socket *lsk; > > Two things to fix up: > > Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are > freed. I'll add the following releasing code in mptcp_nl_cmd_del_addr and __flush_addrs in v8: if (entry->lsk) sock_release(entry->lsk); But as I mentioned on my last letter, there is a deadlock warning when releasing this listening socket. > > lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > I'll add the following code in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id in v8: entry->lsk = NULL; > > }; > > > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > > } > > > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > > +{ > > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > + struct socket *ssock; > > + int backlog = 20; > > Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high > connection rate, or worth a sysctl? I'll change it to '1024' in v8, since on the textbook UNPv3, 1024 is always used as the 2nd argument to listen(): int backlog = 1024; -Geliang > > Thanks, > > Mat > > > + int err; > > + > > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > > + if (!msk) { > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > > + if (!ssock) { > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > > + if (err) { > > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > > + if (err) { > > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > + > > +out: > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > + return err; > > +} > > + > > static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > { > > struct nlattr *attr = info->attrs[MPTCP_PM_ATTR_ADDR]; > > @@ -750,9 +798,19 @@ static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > } > > > > *entry = addr; > > + if (entry->addr.port) { > > + ret = mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(skb->sk, entry); > > + if (ret) { > > + GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "create listen socket error"); > > + kfree(entry); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + } > > ret = mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr(pernet, entry); > > if (ret < 0) { > > GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "too many addresses or duplicate one"); > > + if (entry->lsk) > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > kfree(entry); > > return ret; > > } > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > index 4c36969873b9..5e464dfc0f6f 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c > > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void __mptcp_check_send_data_fin(struct sock *sk); > > * completed yet or has failed, return the subflow socket. > > * Otherwise return NULL. > > */ > > -static struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) > > { > > if (!msk->subflow || READ_ONCE(msk->can_ack)) > > return NULL; > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > index 9d8f01aac91c..ec179f3a6b4b 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > @@ -466,11 +466,14 @@ void mptcp_subflow_shutdown(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, int how); > > void __mptcp_close_ssk(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, > > struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow); > > void mptcp_subflow_reset(struct sock *ssk); > > +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk); > > > > /* called with sk socket lock held */ > > int __mptcp_subflow_connect(struct sock *sk, const struct mptcp_addr_info *loc, > > const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote); > > int mptcp_subflow_create_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket **new_sock); > > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr); > > > > static inline void mptcp_subflow_tcp_fallback(struct sock *sk, > > struct mptcp_subflow_context *ctx) > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > index 96c585f003f8..43cc5e2c3234 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c > > @@ -1035,8 +1035,8 @@ void mptcpv6_handle_mapped(struct sock *sk, bool mapped) > > } > > #endif > > > > -static void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > - struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > > +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, > > + struct sockaddr_storage *addr) > > { > > memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr)); > > addr->ss_family = info->family; > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > -- > Mat Martineau > Intel
On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 14:30 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > Hi Paolo, Mat, > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:36:08PM -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > > listened for the connection. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > > > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > > > struct list_head list; > > > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > > + struct socket *lsk; > > > > Two things to fix up: > > > > Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are > > freed. > > > > lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > > > > > }; > > > > > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > > > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > > > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > > > } > > > > > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > > > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > > > +{ > > > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > > + struct socket *ssock; > > > + int backlog = 20; > > > > Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high > > connection rate, or worth a sysctl? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mat > > > > > + int err; > > > + > > > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > > > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > > > + if (err) > > > + return err; > > > + > > > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > > > + if (!msk) { > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > > > + if (!ssock) { > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > > > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > > > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > > > + if (err) { > > > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > > > + if (err) { > > > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > +out: > > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > I need some help about releasing the MPTCP type listening socket. When I > use "sock_release(entry->lsk)" to release it, I'll get a deadlock warning > like this: > > ---- > > [ 55.789592] ============================================ > [ 55.789593] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > [ 55.789594] 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 Not tainted > [ 55.789595] -------------------------------------------- > [ 55.789596] pm_nl_ctl/5583 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 55.789597] ffff9ff9883cb960 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > [ 55.789604] > but task is already holding lock: > [ 55.789605] ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 > [ 55.789608] > other info that might help us debug this: > [ 55.789609] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > [ 55.789610] CPU0 > [ 55.789610] ---- > [ 55.789611] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > [ 55.789613] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > [ 55.789614] > *** DEADLOCK *** > > [ 55.789615] May be due to missing lock nesting notation Uhm... this lock warning is quite strange. We already hit that lock sequence in several others places, with no splat. The lock sequence per se is safe, as the lock is for different 'struct sock' I'm wondering if you are get any others eariler warning, fooling lockdepth ?!? Thanks, Paolo
Hi Paolo, Thanks for your help. Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> 于2020年12月9日周三 下午7:14写道： > > On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 14:30 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > > Hi Paolo, Mat, > > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:36:08PM -0800, Mat Martineau wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > > > > > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > > > > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > > > > listened for the connection. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > > > > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > > > > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > > > > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > > index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 > > > > --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c > > > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { > > > > struct list_head list; > > > > struct mptcp_addr_info addr; > > > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > > > + struct socket *lsk; > > > > > > Two things to fix up: > > > > > > Non-zero lsk is not released everywhere mptcp_pm_addr_entry structs are > > > freed. > > > > > > lsk is not initialized in mptcp_pm_nl_get_local_id() > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { > > > > @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) > > > > return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, > > > > + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct sockaddr_storage addr; > > > > + struct mptcp_sock *msk; > > > > + struct socket *ssock; > > > > + int backlog = 20; > > > > > > Any comment on the choice of '20' here? Could it be too small for a high > > > connection rate, or worth a sysctl? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mat > > > > > > > + int err; > > > > + > > > > + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, > > > > + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); > > > > + if (err) > > > > + return err; > > > > + > > > > + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); > > > > + if (!msk) { > > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); > > > > + if (!ssock) { > > > > + err = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); > > > > + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, > > > > + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); > > > > + if (err) { > > > > + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); > > > > + if (err) { > > > > + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); > > > > + goto out; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > +out: > > > > + sock_release(entry->lsk); > > > > I need some help about releasing the MPTCP type listening socket. When I > > use "sock_release(entry->lsk)" to release it, I'll get a deadlock warning > > like this: > > > > ---- > > > > [ 55.789592] ============================================ > > [ 55.789593] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > > [ 55.789594] 5.10.0-rc6-mptcp+ #742 Not tainted > > [ 55.789595] -------------------------------------------- > > [ 55.789596] pm_nl_ctl/5583 is trying to acquire lock: > > [ 55.789597] ffff9ff9883cb960 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __mptcp_close_ssk+0x52/0x160 > > [ 55.789604] > > but task is already holding lock: > > [ 55.789605] ffff9ff949c1c1a0 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: mptcp_close+0x45/0x320 > > [ 55.789608] > > other info that might help us debug this: > > [ 55.789609] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > > > [ 55.789610] CPU0 > > [ 55.789610] ---- > > [ 55.789611] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > > [ 55.789613] lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET); > > [ 55.789614] > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > > > [ 55.789615] May be due to missing lock nesting notation > > Uhm... this lock warning is quite strange. We already hit that lock > sequence in several others places, with no splat. The lock sequence per > se is safe, as the lock is for different 'struct sock' > > I'm wondering if you are get any others eariler warning, fooling > lockdepth ?!? No other warnings, I only got this deadlock warning. -Geliang > > Thanks, > > Paolo >
diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c index 5151cfcd6962..c296927bf167 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry { struct list_head list; struct mptcp_addr_info addr; struct rcu_head rcu; + struct socket *lsk; }; struct mptcp_pm_add_entry { @@ -732,6 +733,53 @@ static struct pm_nl_pernet *genl_info_pm_nl(struct genl_info *info) return net_generic(genl_info_net(info), pm_nl_pernet_id); } +static int mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(struct sock *sk, + struct mptcp_pm_addr_entry *entry) +{ + struct sockaddr_storage addr; + struct mptcp_sock *msk; + struct socket *ssock; + int backlog = 20; + int err; + + err = sock_create_kern(sock_net(sk), entry->addr.family, + SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_MPTCP, &entry->lsk); + if (err) + return err; + + msk = mptcp_sk(entry->lsk->sk); + if (!msk) { + err = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + + ssock = __mptcp_nmpc_socket(msk); + if (!ssock) { + err = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + + mptcp_info2sockaddr(&entry->addr, &addr); + err = kernel_bind(ssock, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, + sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); + if (err) { + pr_warn("kernel_bind error, err=%d", err); + goto out; + } + + err = kernel_listen(ssock, backlog); + if (err) { + pr_warn("kernel_listen error, err=%d", err); + goto out; + } + + return 0; + +out: + sock_release(entry->lsk); + return err; +} + static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) { struct nlattr *attr = info->attrs[MPTCP_PM_ATTR_ADDR]; @@ -750,9 +798,19 @@ static int mptcp_nl_cmd_add_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) } *entry = addr; + if (entry->addr.port) { + ret = mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket(skb->sk, entry); + if (ret) { + GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "create listen socket error"); + kfree(entry); + return ret; + } + } ret = mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr(pernet, entry); if (ret < 0) { GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "too many addresses or duplicate one"); + if (entry->lsk) + sock_release(entry->lsk); kfree(entry); return ret; } diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c index 4c36969873b9..5e464dfc0f6f 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void __mptcp_check_send_data_fin(struct sock *sk); * completed yet or has failed, return the subflow socket. * Otherwise return NULL. */ -static struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) { if (!msk->subflow || READ_ONCE(msk->can_ack)) return NULL; diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h index 9d8f01aac91c..ec179f3a6b4b 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h @@ -466,11 +466,14 @@ void mptcp_subflow_shutdown(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, int how); void __mptcp_close_ssk(struct sock *sk, struct sock *ssk, struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow); void mptcp_subflow_reset(struct sock *ssk); +struct socket *__mptcp_nmpc_socket(const struct mptcp_sock *msk); /* called with sk socket lock held */ int __mptcp_subflow_connect(struct sock *sk, const struct mptcp_addr_info *loc, const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote); int mptcp_subflow_create_socket(struct sock *sk, struct socket **new_sock); +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, + struct sockaddr_storage *addr); static inline void mptcp_subflow_tcp_fallback(struct sock *sk, struct mptcp_subflow_context *ctx) diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c index 96c585f003f8..43cc5e2c3234 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c @@ -1035,8 +1035,8 @@ void mptcpv6_handle_mapped(struct sock *sk, bool mapped) } #endif -static void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, - struct sockaddr_storage *addr) +void mptcp_info2sockaddr(const struct mptcp_addr_info *info, + struct sockaddr_storage *addr) { memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr)); addr->ss_family = info->family;
This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and listened for the connection. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> --- net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)