On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 05:46:27PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> > > 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).

Ah, good point.  That makes this whole patch pretty ill-conceived.
I'll ditch everything except the error reporting addition.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| 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