Re: [PATCH mptcp-next RFC 2/3] mptcp: reject MP_JOIN earlier

Matthieu Baerts <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.mptcp
Organization NGI0 Core
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Paolo,

Thank you for having looked at this!

On 17/08/2026 09:27, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 8/14/26 8:31 PM, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
>> @@ -91,12 +92,22 @@ static struct mptcp_sock *subflow_token_join_request(struct request_sock *req)
>>  	msk = mptcp_token_get_sock(sock_net(req_to_sk(req)), subflow_req->token);
>>  	if (!msk) {
>>  		SUBFLOW_REQ_INC_STATS(req, MPTCP_MIB_JOINNOTOKEN);
>> +		*reason = MPTCP_RST_EMPTCP;
>> +		return NULL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Stop it early if the subflow cannot be accepted */
>> +	if (!mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow(msk)) {
> 
> Side note: the above is inherently racy, the consistency safeguard is
> given by the fallback check at finish_join time.

Just to be sure: even if it is racy, is it OK to use it here but
continuing having the safe check at finish_join time?

In other words, having such a comment is enough?

  /* Stop it early if the subflow cannot be accepted.
   * This check is inherently racy, the consistency safeguard is
   * given by the fallback check at finish_join time.
   */

> Minor nit: I'm not sure this check belongs here or in
> subflow_check_req(). The latter option would avoid the additional
> argument and possibly produce a smaller diff (and smaller code).

After re-looking at this code yesterday, I agree with you. Also, I think
subflow_token_join_request() should only return the msk, and not
changing anything else from subflow_req.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.