Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

set subflow socket consistently #129

Closed
pabeni opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

set subflow socket consistently #129

pabeni opened this issue Dec 14, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@pabeni
Copy link

pabeni commented Dec 14, 2020

client/outbount subflows have "individual" struct socket: new a struct socket is allocated for each of such subflow and ssk->sk_socket points to it (with IPPROTO_TCP).

server/incoming subflows shares a single struct socket, the same struct socket originally created for the parent msk sock (with IPPROTO_MPTCP).

The above means:

  • we need to traverse the conn_list to set the NOSPACE bit on each subflow
  • {set,get}sockopt and all other syscall relaying on subflow sockets with act inconsistently on outbound and inbound sockets.

A possible solution involves, at subflow creation time - mptcp_subflow_create_socket():

  • if msk->subflow is NULL, set msk->subflow to ssk->sk_socket, otherwise free ssk->sk_socket
  • mptcp_sock_graft() ssk to msk
@pabeni
Copy link
Author

pabeni commented Jan 20, 2021

implemented with:

"mptcp: always graft subflow socket to parent"

@pabeni pabeni closed this as completed Jan 20, 2021
jenkins-tessares pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2023
LE Create CIS command shall not be sent before all CIS Established
events from its previous invocation have been processed. Currently it is
sent via hci_sync but that only waits for the first event, but there can
be multiple.

Make it wait for all events, and simplify the CIS creation as follows:

Add new flag HCI_CONN_CREATE_CIS, which is set if Create CIS has been
sent for the connection but it is not yet completed.

Make BT_CONNECT state to mean the connection wants Create CIS.

On events after which new Create CIS may need to be sent, send it if
possible and some connections need it. These events are:
hci_connect_cis, iso_connect_cfm, hci_cs_le_create_cis,
hci_le_cis_estabilished_evt.

The Create CIS status/completion events shall queue new Create CIS only
if at least one of the connections transitions away from BT_CONNECT, so
that we don't loop if controller is sending bogus events.

This fixes sending multiple CIS Create for the same CIS in the
"ISO AC 6(i) - Success" BlueZ test case:

< HCI Command: LE Create Co.. (0x08|0x0064) plen 9  #129 [hci0]
        Number of CIS: 2
        CIS Handle: 257
        ACL Handle: 42
        CIS Handle: 258
        ACL Handle: 42
> HCI Event: Command Status (0x0f) plen 4           #130 [hci0]
      LE Create Connected Isochronous Stream (0x08|0x0064) ncmd 1
        Status: Success (0x00)
> HCI Event: LE Meta Event (0x3e) plen 29           #131 [hci0]
      LE Connected Isochronous Stream Established (0x19)
        Status: Success (0x00)
        Connection Handle: 257
        ...
< HCI Command: LE Setup Is.. (0x08|0x006e) plen 13  #132 [hci0]
        ...
> HCI Event: Command Complete (0x0e) plen 6         #133 [hci0]
      LE Setup Isochronous Data Path (0x08|0x006e) ncmd 1
        ...
< HCI Command: LE Create Co.. (0x08|0x0064) plen 5  #134 [hci0]
        Number of CIS: 1
        CIS Handle: 258
        ACL Handle: 42
> HCI Event: Command Status (0x0f) plen 4           #135 [hci0]
      LE Create Connected Isochronous Stream (0x08|0x0064) ncmd 1
        Status: ACL Connection Already Exists (0x0b)
> HCI Event: LE Meta Event (0x3e) plen 29           #136 [hci0]
      LE Connected Isochronous Stream Established (0x19)
        Status: Success (0x00)
        Connection Handle: 258
        ...

Fixes: c09b80b ("Bluetooth: hci_conn: Fix not waiting for HCI_EVT_LE_CIS_ESTABLISHED")
Signed-off-by: Pauli Virtanen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[email protected]>
matttbe pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2024
Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs")
for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch.
Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only
thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call().

Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed:

  # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL
  #119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL
  #120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL
  #121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL
  #122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL
  #123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL
  #124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL
  #125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL
  #128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL
  #129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL

This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from
__bpf_call_base:

  ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1    [bpf_testmod]
  9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base

The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks
the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts
this limit.

Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled.

With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed:

  # ./test_verifier
  ...
  Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant