Message ID | 1693563621-1920-1-git-send-email-quic_srichara@quicinc.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: qrtr: Few qrtr fixes | expand |
Hi Bjorn, On 9/1/2023 7:41 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 03:50:20PM +0530, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote: >> From: Vignesh Viswanathan <quic_viswanat@quicinc.com> >> >> If qrtr and some other process try to bind to the QMI Control port at > > It's unclear to me which "qrtr" is being referred here, could it be > "qrtr-ns", if so could we express that as "the name server". > yes, its name-space server. Will put it explicitly. > We only allow one bind on the qrtr control port, so could it be that > "QMI Control port" refer to the control socket in the userspace QC[CS]I > libraries, if so that's just any random socket sending out a control > message. > > Can we please rephrase this problem description to make the chain of > events clear? > In this case we are talking about a client connecting/sending to QRTR socket and the 'NS' doing a qrtr_bind during its init. There is possibility that a client tries to send to the 'NS' before processing the ENETRESET. In the case of a NEW_SERVER control message will reach the 'NS' and be forwarded to the firmware. The client will then process the ENETRESET closing and re-opening the socket which triggers a DEL_SERVER and then a second NEW_SERVER. This scenario will give an unnecessary disconnect to the clients on the firmware who were able to initialize on the first NEW_SERVER. Also about the patch #2, i guess QRTR_BYE/DEL_PROC should also be broadcasted, right now we are only listening on DEL_PROC sent by legacy kernels like SDX modems. Without that modem SSR feature is broken on IPQ + SDX targets. >> the same time, NEW_SERVER might come before ENETRESET is given to the >> socket. This might cause a socket down/up when ENETRESET is received as >> per the protocol and this triggers a DEL_SERVER and a second NEW_SERVER. >> >> In order to prevent such messages from stale sockets being sent, check >> if ENETRESET has been set on the socket and drop the packet. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Viswanathan <quic_viswanat@quicinc.com> > > The first person to certify the patch's origin, must be the author, and > when you pick the patch to send it you need to add your s-o-b. > > So please fix the author, and add your s-o-b. > ok sure, will fix. > > Let's add Chris to the recipients list as well. > ok. >> --- >> net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c b/net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c >> index 41ece61..26197a0 100644 >> --- a/net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c >> +++ b/net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c >> @@ -851,6 +851,7 @@ static int qrtr_local_enqueue(struct qrtr_node *node, struct sk_buff *skb, >> { >> struct qrtr_sock *ipc; >> struct qrtr_cb *cb; >> + struct sock *sk = skb->sk; >> >> ipc = qrtr_port_lookup(to->sq_port); >> if (!ipc || &ipc->sk == skb->sk) { /* do not send to self */ >> @@ -860,6 +861,15 @@ static int qrtr_local_enqueue(struct qrtr_node *node, struct sk_buff *skb, >> return -ENODEV; >> } >> >> + /* Keep resetting NETRESET until socket is closed */ >> + if (sk && sk->sk_err == ENETRESET) { >> + sk->sk_err = ENETRESET; > > Isn't this line unnecessary? > yup, will be removed in V2. Regards, Sricharan
Hi Simon, On 9/1/2023 7:49 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 03:50:19PM +0530, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote: >> Patch #1 fixes a race condition between qrtr driver and ns opening and >> sending data to a control port. >> >> Patch #2 address the issue with legacy targets sending the SSR >> notifications using DEL_PROC control message. > > Hi Sricharan, > > if these are fixes then they should be targeted at 'net' rather than > 'net-next', and consideration should be given to supplying Fixes tags. > There is as such no existing feature broken without these 2 patches today. Then they might qualify as preparatory patches for adding some features. > If these are not fixes, then please don't describe them as such. > In this case targeting net-next is correct, but it is currently closed, > as per the form letter below. > Sure, then in that case looks like it belongs to 'net-next' and will post V2 once the net-next is opened again. > In either case please consider: > > * Arranging local variables for new Networking code in > reverse xmas tree order - longest line to shortest > > * Avoiding introducing new Sparse warnings > > ok. > ## Form letter - net-next-closed > > The merge window for v6.6 has begun and therefore net-next is closed > for new drivers, features, code refactoring and optimizations. > We are currently accepting bug fixes only. > > Please repost when net-next reopens after Sept 11th. > ok, sure. Regards, Sricharan