On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:58:47AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:47:32PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:

quoted

Previous to setting the owner the socket is found via
vsock_find_connected_socket(), which returns sk after a call to
sock_hold().

If setting the owner fails, then sock_put() needs to be called.

Fixes: f9d2b1e146e0 ("virtio/vsock: fix leaks due to missing skb owner")
Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <redacted>
---
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
index b769fc258931..f01cd6adc5cb 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c

@@ -1343,6 +1343,7 @@ void virtio_transport_recv_pkt(struct virtio_transport *t,

	if (!skb_set_owner_sk_safe(skb, sk)) {
		WARN_ONCE(1, "receiving vsock socket has sk_refcnt == 0\n");
+		sock_put(sk);

Did you have any warning, issue here?

IIUC skb_set_owner_sk_safe() can return false only if the ref counter
is 0, so calling a sock_put() on it should have no effect except to
produce a warning.

Oh yeah, you're totally right. I did not recall how
skb_set_owner_sk_safe() worked internally and thought I'd introduced an
uneven hold/put count with that prior patch when reading through the
code again. I haven't seen any live issue, just misread the code.

Sorry about that, feel free to ignore this patch.

Best,
Bobby