> On 6 Jan 2025, at 19:45, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 18:58:16 +0300
>> From: Vitaliy Makkoveev <mvs@openbsd.org>
>> 
>> This is the lockless access, so do it.
> 
> Sorry, but once again, I don't think this makes sense.  Atomic access
> doesn't mean blindly replacing assignments with
> READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() or atomic_load_int()/atomic_store_int().  The
> diff below makes me strongly suspect accessing so_error without
> holding some sort of lock isn't actually safe.  At the very minimum
> you're missing some memory barriers here!
> 
> 

This is not the blindly replacing, we need WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()
here to prevent reordering and be sure, so_error value is not cached.

>> Index: sys/kern/uipc_socket.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket.c,v
>> diff -u -p -r1.356 uipc_socket.c
>> --- sys/kern/uipc_socket.c	4 Jan 2025 15:57:02 -0000	1.356
>> +++ sys/kern/uipc_socket.c	6 Jan 2025 15:53:54 -0000
>> @@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ restart:
>> 		if (so->so_snd.sb_state & SS_CANTSENDMORE)
>> 			snderr(EPIPE);
>> 		if ((error = READ_ONCE(so->so_error))) {
>> -			so->so_error = 0;
>> +			WRITE_ONCE(so->so_error, 0);
>> 			snderr(error);
>> 		}
>> 		if ((so->so_state & SS_ISCONNECTED) == 0) {
>> @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ restart:
>> 				goto dontblock;
>> 			error = error2;
>> 			if ((flags & MSG_PEEK) == 0)
>> -				so->so_error = 0;
>> +				WRITE_ONCE(so->so_error, 0);
>> 			goto release;
>> 		}
>> 		if (so->so_rcv.sb_state & SS_CANTRCVMORE) {
>> @@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@ dontblock:
>> 		while (flags & MSG_WAITALL && m == NULL && uio->uio_resid > 0 &&
>> 		    !sosendallatonce(so) && !nextrecord) {
>> 			if (so->so_rcv.sb_state & SS_CANTRCVMORE ||
>> -			    so->so_error)
>> +			    READ_ONCE(so->so_error))
>> 				break;
>> 			SBLASTRECORDCHK(&so->so_rcv, "soreceive sbwait 2");
>> 			SBLASTMBUFCHK(&so->so_rcv, "soreceive sbwait 2");
>> 
>> 
>