From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] conf, tap, repair: Uniformly use non-blocking accept() on Unix sockets
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 17:46:27 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260516174627.290aae6e@elisabeth> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agQRXz4HW3mqdaya@zatzit>
On Wed, 13 May 2026 15:51:27 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 02:14:22PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > sock_unix(), which creates a listening Unix socket, doesn't set the
> > SOCK_NONBLOCK flag, meaning that accept() will block if called with no
> > pending connections. Generally, this doesn't matter because we only
> > accept() once we've received an epoll event indicating there's a pending
> > connection request.
> >
> > Control connections (pesto) are an exception, because the way we queue
> > connections requires that we call accept() when we close one connection to
> > see if there's another one waiting. We rely on an EAGAIN here to know that
> > there's nothing waiting. To handle these we have an explicit fcntl() to
> > enable NONBLOCK on the control listening socket.
> >
> > However, always using non-blocking accept() for Unix sockets would make
> > things a bit more uniform, and should be a bit less fragile in the case
> > that we ever somehow got a spurious connection event. So, alter
> > sock_unix() to always use the SOCK_NONBLOCK flag. Remove the control
> > socket's special case fcntl(), and adjust the error handling on each
> > Unix socket accept() for the new behaviour. As a bonus the last adds
> > reporting for accept() errors on tap socket connections.
>
> I didn't realise it, but adding that reporting also removes a valid,
> if fairly minor coverity warning (at least with coverity 2026.3.0).
>
> > we will need non-blocking accept() for the upcoming control/configuration
> > socket. Always add SOCK_NONBLOCK, which is more robust and in keeping with
> > the normal non-blocking style of passt.
>
> Oops. This paragraph is left over from a previous version. Can you
> remove on merge, if there's no other reason to respin?
I think the comments I'm raising (the one below and the one to 3/3)
actually warrant a respin at this point.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > ---
> > conf.c | 4 +---
> > repair.c | 4 ++--
> > tap.c | 5 +++++
> > util.c | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/conf.c b/conf.c
> > index 029b9c7c..dec43fca 100644
> > --- a/conf.c
> > +++ b/conf.c
> > @@ -1091,8 +1091,6 @@ static void conf_open_files(struct ctx *c)
> > die_perror("Couldn't open control socket %s",
> > c->control_path);
> > }
> > - if (fcntl(c->fd_control_listen, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK))
> > - die_perror("Couldn't set O_NONBLOCK on control socket");
> > } else {
> > c->fd_control_listen = -1;
> > }
> > @@ -2087,7 +2085,7 @@ retry:
> > fd = accept4(c->fd_control_listen, NULL, NULL, SOCK_CLOEXEC);
> > if (fd < 0) {
> > if (errno != EAGAIN)
> > - warn_perror("accept4() on configuration listening socket");
> > + warn_perror("Error accept()ing configuration socket");
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/repair.c b/repair.c
> > index 3e0e3e0a..42c4ae97 100644
> > --- a/repair.c
> > +++ b/repair.c
> > @@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ int repair_listen_handler(struct ctx *c, uint32_t events)
> >
> > if ((c->fd_repair = accept4(c->fd_repair_listen, NULL, NULL,
> > SOCK_CLOEXEC)) < 0) {
> > - rc = errno;
> > - debug_perror("accept4() on TCP_REPAIR helper listening socket");
> > + if ((rc = errno) != EAGAIN)
> > + warn_perror("Error accept()ing repair helper");
See repair_wait() for the reason why this particular listening socket
needs to be blocking (with a timeout).
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
> > index e7cac9df..fda2da9b 100644
> > --- a/tap.c
> > +++ b/tap.c
> > @@ -1491,6 +1491,11 @@ void tap_listen_handler(struct ctx *c, uint32_t events)
> > }
> >
> > c->fd_tap = accept4(c->fd_tap_listen, NULL, NULL, SOCK_CLOEXEC);
> > + if (c->fd_tap < 0) {
> > + if (errno != EAGAIN)
> > + warn_perror("Error accepting tap client");
> > + return;
> > + }
> >
> > if (!getsockopt(c->fd_tap, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEERCRED, &ucred, &len))
> > info("accepted connection from PID %i", ucred.pid);
> > diff --git a/util.c b/util.c
> > index 73c9d51d..204391c7 100644
> > --- a/util.c
> > +++ b/util.c
> > @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ int sock_l4_dualstack_any(const struct ctx *c, enum epoll_type type,
> > */
> > int sock_unix(char *sock_path)
> > {
> > - int fd = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0);
> > + int fd = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC | SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0);
> > struct sockaddr_un addr = {
> > .sun_family = AF_UNIX,
> > };
> > --
> > 2.54.0
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-16 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 4:14 [PATCH 0/3] More caution with NONBLOCK flag " David Gibson
2026-05-13 4:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Add SOCK_CLOEXEC to accept() calls that are missing it David Gibson
2026-05-16 15:46 ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-13 4:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] conf, tap, repair: Uniformly use non-blocking accept() on Unix sockets David Gibson
2026-05-13 5:51 ` David Gibson
2026-05-16 15:46 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
2026-05-13 4:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] conf, repair, tap: More caution about blocking flag " David Gibson
2026-05-16 15:46 ` Stefano Brivio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260516174627.290aae6e@elisabeth \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://passt.top/passt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).