On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:05:43PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:25:55PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:58:31AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> This commit makes the bind table management functions in vsock usable
> for different bind tables. For use by datagrams in a future patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshle...@bytedance.com>
> ---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> index ef86765f3765..7a3ca4270446 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> @@ -230,11 +230,12 @@ static void __vsock_remove_connected(struct vsock_sock
*vsk)
> sock_put(&vsk->sk);
> }
>
> -static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +struct sock *vsock_find_bound_socket_common(struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
> + struct list_head *bind_table)
> {
> struct vsock_sock *vsk;
>
> - list_for_each_entry(vsk, vsock_bound_sockets(addr), bound_table) {
> + list_for_each_entry(vsk, bind_table, bound_table) {
> if (vsock_addr_equals_addr(addr, &vsk->local_addr))
> return sk_vsock(vsk);
>
> @@ -247,6 +248,11 @@ static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct
sockaddr_vm *addr)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static struct sock *__vsock_find_bound_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +{
> + return vsock_find_bound_socket_common(addr, vsock_bound_sockets(addr));
> +}
> +
> static struct sock *__vsock_find_connected_socket(struct sockaddr_vm *src,
> struct sockaddr_vm *dst)
> {
> @@ -646,12 +652,17 @@ static void vsock_pending_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> /**** SOCKET OPERATIONS ****/
>
> -static int __vsock_bind_connectible(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> - struct sockaddr_vm *addr)
> +static int vsock_bind_common(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> + struct sockaddr_vm *addr,
> + struct list_head *bind_table,
> + size_t table_size)
> {
> static u32 port;
> struct sockaddr_vm new_addr;
>
> + if (table_size < VSOCK_HASH_SIZE)
> + return -1;
Why we need this check now?
If the table_size is not at least VSOCK_HASH_SIZE then the
VSOCK_HASH(addr) used later could overflow the table.
Maybe this really deserves a WARN() and a comment?
Yes, please WARN_ONCE() should be enough.
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
