On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:33:58 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:15:18 +0000, John Fastabend wrote: > > > @@ -352,15 +354,18 @@ static void tls_sk_proto_close(struct sock *sk, > > > long timeout) > > > if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_BASE && ctx->rx_conf == TLS_BASE) > > > goto skip_tx_cleanup; > > > > > > - sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto; > > > tls_sk_proto_cleanup(sk, ctx, timeo); > > > > > > skip_tx_cleanup: > > > + write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock); > > > + icsk->icsk_ulp_data = NULL; > > > > Is ulp_data pointer now supposed to be updated under the > > sk_callback_lock? > > Yes otherwise it can race with tls_update(). I didn't remove the > ulp pointer null set from tcp_ulp.c though. Could be done in this > patch or as a follow up.
Do we need to hold the lock in unhash, too, or is unhash called with sk_callback_lock held? > > > + if (sk->sk_prot->close == tls_sk_proto_close) > > > + sk->sk_prot = ctx->sk_proto; > > > + write_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock); > > > release_sock(sk); > > > if (ctx->rx_conf == TLS_SW) > > > tls_sw_release_strp_rx(ctx); > > > - sk_proto_close(sk, timeout); > > > - > > > + ctx->sk_proto_close(sk, timeout); > > > if (ctx->tx_conf != TLS_HW && ctx->rx_conf != TLS_HW && > > > ctx->tx_conf != TLS_HW_RECORD && ctx->rx_conf != TLS_HW_RECORD) > > > tls_ctx_free(ctx);
