Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as drain mode
From: Tolga Ceylan <hidden>
Date: 2016-03-24 05:10:07
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Willy Tarreau [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:38:27PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:quoted
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Willy Tarreau [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:38:03PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:quoted
On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:quoted
Hi Josh, On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:33:45AM -0800, Josh Snyder wrote:quoted
I was also puzzled that binding succeeded. Looking into the code paths involved, in inet_csk_get_port, we quickly goto have_snum. From there, we end up dropping into tb_found. Since !hlist_empty(&tb->owners), we end up checking that (tb->fastreuseport > 0 && sk->sk_reuseport && uid_eq(tb->fastuid, uid)). This test passes, so we goto success and bind. Crucially, we are checking the fastreuseport field on the inet_bind_bucket, and not the sk_reuseport variable on the other sockets in the bucket. Since this bit is set based on sk_reuseport at the time the first socket binds (see tb_not_found), I can see no reason why sockets need to keep SO_REUSEPORT set beyond initial binding. Given this, I believe Willy's patch elegantly solves the problem at hand.Great, thanks for your in-depth explanation. Eric, do you think that this patch may be acceptable material for next merge window (given that it's not a fix per-se) ? If so I'll resubmit later.I need to check with Craig Gallek, because he was about to upstream a change to make SO_REUSEPORT more scalable & sexy (like having an [e]BPF filter to perform the selection in an array of sockets)
Hi All, I apologize for not properly following up on this. I had the impression that we did not want to merge my original patch and then I also noticed that it fails to keep the hash consistent. Recently, I read the follow ups on it as well as Willy's patch/proposals. Is there any update on Willy's SO_REUSEPORT patch? IMHO, it solves the problem and it is simpler than adding new sock option. Best Regards, Tolga Ceylan