On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:49:35PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> In the case where the client writes a packet and then closes the
> socket, because we receive EPOLLIN|EPOLLRDHUP together we have a
> choice of whether to close the socket immediately, or read the packet
> and then close the socket.  Choose the latter.
> 
> This should improve fuzzing coverage and arguably is a better choice
> even for regular use since dropping packets on close is bad.
> 
> See-also: https://archives.passt.top/passt-dev/20221117171805.3746f53a@elisabeth/
> Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

> ---
>  tap.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
> index 9998127..d97af6a 100644
> --- a/tap.c
> +++ b/tap.c
> @@ -1106,13 +1106,13 @@ void tap_handler(struct ctx *c, int fd, uint32_t events,
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (events & (EPOLLRDHUP | EPOLLHUP | EPOLLERR))
> -		goto reinit;
> -
>  	if ((c->mode == MODE_PASST && tap_handler_passt(c, now)) ||
>  	    (c->mode == MODE_PASTA && tap_handler_pasta(c, now)))
>  		goto reinit;
>  
> +	if (events & (EPOLLRDHUP | EPOLLHUP | EPOLLERR))
> +		goto reinit;
> +
>  	return;
>  reinit:
>  	if (c->one_off) {

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson