From: Vitaliy Makkoveev Subject: Re: Use WRITE_ONCE() to se set so_error in sosend()/soreceive() To: Mark Kettenis Cc: bluhm@openbsd.org, tech@openbsd.org Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 20:07:19 +0300 > On 6 Jan 2025, at 19:45, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 18:58:16 +0300 >> From: Vitaliy Makkoveev >> >> 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"); >> >> >