Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] af_unix: Do not wait for garbage collector in sendmsg()
[email protected] Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:31:53 +0000
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-rt-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: - [High] Removing `unix_schedule_gc()` from `sendmsg()` prevents the AF_UNIX garbage collector from being proactively triggered for isolated cyclic references, leading to spurious -ETOOMANYREFS failures and indefinite resource leaks. - [Low] The `user` parameter and its associated conditional logic in `unix_schedule_gc()` are now dead code. -- --- Patch [2]: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] af_unix: Do not wait for garbage collector in sendmsg() --- commit e95749602b1bd36f1394eab73582d88874294091 Author: Nam Cao <[email protected]> af_unix: Do not wait for garbage collector in sendmsg() This commit removes the unix_schedule_gc() call from the af_unix sendmsg() path to prevent priority inversion scenarios. The change relies on the assumption that checking RLIMIT_NOFILE and running the garbage collector asynchronously are sufficient to prevent historical soft lockup and out-of-memory issues. > diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c > index 0783555e25266..f180c59b3da9d 100644 > --- a/net/unix/garbage.c > +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c > @@ -300,8 +300,6 @@ int unix_prepare_fpl(struct scm_fp_list *fpl) > if (!fpl->edges) > goto err; > > - unix_schedule_gc(fpl->user); > - [Severity: High] Does removing this call prevent the af_unix garbage collector from being proactively triggered for isolated cyclic references? If a long-running task generates cyclic af_unix references and drops its file descriptors, the cyclic references' f_count remains > 0, so unix_release_sock() is never called. Without this trigger, wouldn't the garbage collector remain unscheduled unless the task exits or closes an unrelated, non-cyclic af_unix socket? Could this regression lead to legitimate operations failing with -ETOOMANYREFS for unprivileged processes, or allow a privileged process to bypass RLIMIT_NOFILE and leak memory unboundedly? [Severity: Low] Does removing this call leave the user parameter in unix_schedule_gc() as dead code? If all other callers now unconditionally pass NULL, the conditional logic checking user in unix_schedule_gc() will permanently evaluate to false: net/unix/garbage.c:unix_schedule_gc() { ... if (user && READ_ONCE(user->unix_inflight) < UNIX_INFLIGHT_SANE_USER) return; ... if (user && READ_ONCE(unix_graph_cyclic_sccs)) flush_work(&unix_gc_work); ... } Should the user parameter and these checks be removed as well? > return 0; > > err: -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2