Re: [PATCH] vsock: use sock_error() to consume sk_err after connect timeout
"Nguyen Dinh Phi [SG]" <[email protected]> Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:14:26 +0800
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 22/7/26 15:55, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 01:34:03AM +0800, Phi Nguyen wrote: >> On 7/20/2026 4:17 PM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 05:57:47AM +0800, Nguyen Dinh Phi wrote: >>>> After vsock_connect() exits the wait loop due to sk->sk_err being >>>> set, the error was read but not cleared. This left sk->sk_err set >>>> for subsequent operations. >>> >>> So, is this a fix? If yes, we should put a Fixes tag. >>> >>> Also, can you describe how to trigger the issue? >>> >>> Because I see this in vsock_connect(), so I thought it was in some >>> way already handled: >>> >>> /* sk_err might have been set as a result of an earlier >>> * (failed) connect attempt. >>> */ >>> sk->sk_err = 0; >>> >> This only handles the case where the function following the failed >> connect is another connect() call. > > So, can we remove that with this patch, or better to leave as defensive > action? > I prefer to keep it here as defensive action >> >>>> Switch to sock_error() which atomically reads and clears sk->sk_err, >>>> so the error is consumed when returned. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nguyen Dinh Phi <[email protected]> >>>> Reported-by: [email protected] >>> >>> Can you explain how this patch fixes that issue? >>> (this should be the first information to be put in the commit message >>> IMHO) >>> >>> I'd like to understand better if this is a fix of real bug or just an >>> improvement to the code (which is fine by me). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stefano >>> >> Here are the steps of the syzkaller reproducer: >> >> r0 = socket(AF_VSOCK, SOCK_STREAM, 0) >> >> bind(r0, {VMADDR_CID_ANY, PORT}) >> >> connect(r0, {VMADDR_CID_LOCAL, PORT}) >> >> listen(r0, backlog) >> >> r1 = socket(AF_VSOCK, SOCK_STREAM, 0) >> >> connect(r1, {VMADDR_CID_LOCAL, PORT}) >> >> connect(r0 -> self) -> -1, EPROTO >> >> listen(r0) -> 0 >> >> connect(r1 -> r0) -> 0 >> >> accept(r0) -> -1, EPROTO >> >> Basically, it creates a socket (r0) and triggers a self-connect after >> binding it. This self-connect fails with EPROTO because it loops back >> to r0 while the socket is still in the TCP_SYN_SENT state, causing it >> to be incorrectly dispatched to the connecting-client path. The >> unexpected packet type encountered there sets sk_err to EPROTO. >> >> After that, it invokes a listen() call on the same socket. This >> listen() call succeeds because the kernel's listening path never >> inspects or clears sk_err. Then, a new socket (r1) is created as a >> normal client and connects to r0. However, vsock_accept() rejects this >> incoming connection because the listener's sk_err still holds the >> EPROTO error from the earlier failed self-connect. >> >> This rejection causes the child socket created for r1's connection to >> never be freed on virtio or hyperv transports; only the VMCI transport >> implements pending_work to revisit and clean up a rejected socket >> This patch will prevent the rejection branch to occur in this scenario. > > Okay, get it now, thanks! Please include a summary of this in the commit > description. > > I understand that this resolves syzbot's specific test case, but it > would be best to handle rejected sockets more effectively in af_vsock.c > rather than in the transport layers (if possible). In any case, this can > be done in another patch. > >> >> I think we might schedule the cleanup worker to run in the rejection >> path for these transports as well. > > Yeah, we need to handle that part better, I think it's a leftover when > we generalized AF_VSOCK to support more transport than vmci. > > Indeed this part is a bit confusing: > > /* If the listener socket has received an error, then we should > * reject this socket and return. Note that we simply mark the > * socket rejected, drop our reference, and let the cleanup > * function handle the cleanup; the fact that we found it in > * the listener's accept queue guarantees that the cleanup > * function hasn't run yet. > */ > if (err) { > vconnected->rejected = true; > } else { > > > Would be nice to handle everything in af_vsock.c in some way. > > In conclusion, the patch LGTM, but please expand the commit description, > add the Fixes tag, and target the net tree in the v2. I'll send a v2 with an expanded commit description and the Fixes tag. Regarding the rejected socket cleanup, I agree it would be cleaner to handle it entirely in af_vsock.c. I'll look at that as a follow-up. Thanks, Phi