On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:56:46AM +0000, Raf Dickson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:26 AM Paolo Abeni wrote:
I'm wondering if sk_acceptq_removed() should be bounded in
vsock_remove_pending() ? (even if that change would probably be
net-next material).
Agreed, that would prevent this class of bug entirely. Happy to prepare
a follow-up patch for net-next once this fix lands, if that would be
useful.
And maybe sk_acceptq_added() calls moved in vsock_add_pending().
That said I was wondering about other transports, but it seems both
virtio and hyperv have a simplier handshake that doesn't require the
pending list, since the socket is moved directly in the accept list.
BTW if you are going to sent a follow up, maybe another improvement
(unrelated so another patch) could be to use sk_acceptq_is_full()
instead of `sk->sk_ack_backlog >= sk->sk_max_ack_backlog`. Discovered
while comparing vmci with virtio.
Thanks,
Stefano
