Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] mptcp: hold MP_JOIN msk ref when cloning reqsk
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-08-20 11:18:11
Also in:
mptcp, sashiko-reviews
Hi Ruide, (+cc netdev ML) Thank you for having replied to Sashiko's review. On 20/08/2026 12:58, Wei Ren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 06:56:30AM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:quoted
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this clone helper also need to handle the migration of token_node for MP_CAPABLE requests?That is what patch 2/2 of this series does:
Indeed, Sashiko Gemini didn't look at the next patch. Maybe adding a note in the commit message to say that a similar issue is visible with MP_CAPABLE and addressed in the next patch? Still, that doesn't feel natural to add that... Do you mind also looking at Clashiko's review, please? The suggestion of replacing sock_hold() by refcount_inc_not_zero() might be valid (to be double checked): https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/cover.1786497414.git.yuantan098%40gmail.com ------------------------------ 8< ---------------------------------
quoted hunk
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c index 6257459bcee2..896f472dcba2 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
[ ... ]
quoted hunk
@@ -961,6 +962,9 @@ static struct request_sock *inet_reqsk_clone(struct request_sock *req, rcu_assign_pointer(tcp_sk(nreq->sk)->fastopen_rsk, nreq); } + if (rsk_is_mptcp(req)) + mptcp_subflow_reqsk_clone(req, nreq); + return nreq; }diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c index e1f20ff8fdb4..8f8e1229766d 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c@@ -47,6 +47,17 @@ static void subflow_req_destructor(struct request_sock *req) mptcp_token_destroy_request(req); } +void mptcp_subflow_reqsk_clone(struct request_sock *req, + struct request_sock *new_req) +{ + struct mptcp_subflow_request_sock *subflow_req; + + subflow_req = mptcp_subflow_rsk(new_req); + + if (subflow_req->msk) + sock_hold((struct sock *)subflow_req->msk); +}
Discovered by: gpt-5-6-sol, opus-5 · Missed by: opus-4-7, sashiko-gemini
Can the sock_hold() here run on an msk whose last reference has already
been dropped?
The pointer being held was snapshotted by the plain (unsafe_)memcpy() in
inet_reqsk_clone(), and the cloning CPU owns no reference to that msk at
this point. The clone happens optimistically in reqsk_timer_handler()
before any ownership arbitration:
net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c:reqsk_timer_handler() {
...
nreq = inet_reqsk_clone(req, nsk);
if (!nreq)
goto drop;
...
/* Even if we can clone the req, we may need not retransmit any more
* SYN+ACKs (nreq->num_timeout > max_syn_ack_retries, etc), or another
* CPU may win the "own_req" race so that inet_ehash_insert() fails.
*/
}
So the third-ACK path can be running on the same request concurrently.
There, the request's msk reference is handed to the child and can then be
released synchronously:
net/mptcp/subflow.c:subflow_syn_recv_sock() {
...
/* move the msk reference ownership to the subflow */
subflow_req->msk = NULL;
ctx->conn = (struct sock *)owner;
if (subflow_use_different_sport(owner, sk)) {
...
if (!mptcp_pm_announced_has_ssk(owner, sk)) {
...
goto dispose_child;
}
}
if (!mptcp_finish_join(child)) {
...
goto dispose_child;
}
}
and dispose_child reaches mptcp_subflow_drop_ctx():
if (ctx->conn)
sock_put(ctx->conn);
If that put (or a later teardown of the joined subflow) is the last
reference, for example because userspace closed the MPTCP connection
concurrently, then the refcount_inc() in sock_hold() lands on freed memory
and on a zero refcount, which is the refcount_warn_saturate() "addition on
0; use-after-free" case.
The window between the memcpy() snapshot and this sock_hold() is not
bounded either: in the TFO branch of inet_reqsk_clone() it even contains
spin_lock_bh(&fastopenq->lock).
Would refcount_inc_not_zero() be more appropriate here, with
new_req->msk cleared when it fails so subflow_req_destructor() does not put
a reference that was never taken? Alternatively, could the hold be taken
under the same exclusion that performs the ownership transfer in
subflow_syn_recv_sock()?
Also, the helper takes req but never uses it, so the original request is
not re-validated at all. Is the req argument intended to be used?
Discovered by: opus-5 · Missed by: opus-4-7, gpt-5-6-sol, sashiko-gemini · Confirmed by: gpt-5-6-sol
This is a pre-existing issue and is not introduced by this patch, but as
long as this hook is the designated fixup point for cloned subflow
requests: inet_reqsk_clone() also byte-copies subflow_req->token_node, the
hlist_nulls node that mptcp_token_new_request() linked into the MPTCP token
bucket for MP_CAPABLE requests, and this version of the helper repairs only
->msk.
The generic detach helper does not cover it either:
net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c:reqsk_migrate_reset() {
req->saved_syn = NULL;
...
}
With only this patch applied, the clone's token_node looks hashed while it
is not reachable from the bucket chain, so after a successful migration the
surviving clone trips the pedantic check in mptcp_token_accept():
net/mptcp/token.c:mptcp_token_accept() {
...
/* pedantic lookup check for the moved token */
pos = __token_lookup_req(bucket, req->token);
if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(pos != req))
hlist_nulls_del_init_rcu(&req->token_node);
}
and the token ends up no longer reserved.
This is resolved later in the same series: the following patch, "mptcp: fix
MP_CAPABLE token migration when cloning reqsk", adds
mptcp_token_move_request() and calls it from mptcp_subflow_reqsk_clone(),
so the state does not exist at the end of the series. Would it be worth
noting the ordering dependency between the two patches in the changelog,
given the Cc: stable tag on this one?
------------------------------ 8< ------------------------------
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.