mptcp: do not wait for bare sockets' timeout
commit d4e85922e3e7ef2071f91f65e61629b60f3a9cf4 upstream. If the peer closes all the existing subflows for a given mptcp socket and later the application closes it, the current implementation let it survive until the timewait timeout expires. While the above is allowed by the protocol specification it consumes resources for almost no reason and additionally causes sporadic self-tests failures. Let's move the mptcp socket to the TCP_CLOSE state when there are no alive subflows at close time, so that the allocated resources will be freed immediately. Fixes: e16163b6e2b7 ("mptcp: refactor shutdown and close") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
e0e93c8599
commit
3cfc5e84ac
@ -2726,6 +2726,7 @@ static void mptcp_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow;
|
||||
bool do_cancel_work = false;
|
||||
int subflows_alive = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
lock_sock(sk);
|
||||
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
|
||||
@ -2747,11 +2748,19 @@ cleanup:
|
||||
struct sock *ssk = mptcp_subflow_tcp_sock(subflow);
|
||||
bool slow = lock_sock_fast_nested(ssk);
|
||||
|
||||
subflows_alive += ssk->sk_state != TCP_CLOSE;
|
||||
|
||||
sock_orphan(ssk);
|
||||
unlock_sock_fast(ssk, slow);
|
||||
}
|
||||
sock_orphan(sk);
|
||||
|
||||
/* all the subflows are closed, only timeout can change the msk
|
||||
* state, let's not keep resources busy for no reasons
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (subflows_alive == 0)
|
||||
inet_sk_state_store(sk, TCP_CLOSE);
|
||||
|
||||
sock_hold(sk);
|
||||
pr_debug("msk=%p state=%d", sk, sk->sk_state);
|
||||
if (sk->sk_state == TCP_CLOSE) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user