PACKET socket can retain its fanout membership through link down and up
and leave a fanout while closed regardless of link state.
However, socket was forbidden from joining a fanout while it was not
RUNNING.

This patch allows PACKET socket to join fanout while not RUNNING.

Signed-off-by: Gur Stavi <gur.stavi@huawei.com>
---
 net/packet/af_packet.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index f8942062f776..fb2cca73d953 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, struct fanout_args *args)
 	err = -EINVAL;
 
 	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
-	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
-	    match->type == type &&
+	if (match->type == type &&
 	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
 	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
 		err = -ENOSPC;
 		if (refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) < match->max_num_members) {
-			__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
-
 			/* Paired with packet_setsockopt(PACKET_FANOUT_DATA) */
 			WRITE_ONCE(po->fanout, match);
 
 			po->rollover = rollover;
 			rollover = NULL;
 			refcount_set(&match->sk_ref, refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) + 1);
-			__fanout_link(sk, po);
+			if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING)) {
+				__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
+				__fanout_link(sk, po);
+			}
 			err = 0;
 		}
 	}
-- 
2.45.2

Gur Stavi wrote:
> PACKET socket can retain its fanout membership through link down and up
> and leave a fanout while closed regardless of link state.
> However, socket was forbidden from joining a fanout while it was not
> RUNNING.
> 
> This patch allows PACKET socket to join fanout while not RUNNING.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gur Stavi <gur.stavi@huawei.com>
> ---
>  net/packet/af_packet.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index f8942062f776..fb2cca73d953 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, struct fanout_args *args)
>  	err = -EINVAL;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> -	    match->type == type &&
> +	if (match->type == type &&
>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {

Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
before being bound. See comment in v1.

>  		err = -ENOSPC;
>  		if (refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) < match->max_num_members) {
> -			__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
> -
>  			/* Paired with packet_setsockopt(PACKET_FANOUT_DATA) */
>  			WRITE_ONCE(po->fanout, match);
>  
>  			po->rollover = rollover;
>  			rollover = NULL;
>  			refcount_set(&match->sk_ref, refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) + 1);
> -			__fanout_link(sk, po);
> +			if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING)) {
> +				__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
> +				__fanout_link(sk, po);
> +			}
>  			err = 0;
>  		}
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.45.2
>

>> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, struct fanout_args *args)
>>  	err = -EINVAL;
>>
>>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
>> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
>> -	    match->type == type &&
>> +	if (match->type == type &&
>>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
>>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
>
> Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> before being bound. See comment in v1.

I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.

As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test that
po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind" would be
to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound device".
However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add such
initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the logic.

Any preferences?

>
>>  		err = -ENOSPC;
>>  		if (refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) < match->max_num_members) {
>> -			__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
>> -
>>  			/* Paired with packet_setsockopt(PACKET_FANOUT_DATA) */
>>  			WRITE_ONCE(po->fanout, match);
>>
>>  			po->rollover = rollover;
>>  			rollover = NULL;
>>  			refcount_set(&match->sk_ref, refcount_read(&match->sk_ref) + 1);
>> -			__fanout_link(sk, po);
>> +			if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING)) {
>> +				__dev_remove_pack(&po->prot_hook);
>> +				__fanout_link(sk, po);
>> +			}
>>  			err = 0;
>>  		}
>>  	}
> --

Gur Stavi wrote:
> >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, struct fanout_args *args)
> >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> >>
> >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> >> -	    match->type == type &&
> >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> >
> > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> 
> I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> 
> As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test that
> po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind" would be
> to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound device".
> However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add such
> initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the logic.
> 
> Any preferences?

prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.

prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
modified with the bind_lock held too.

Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
a specific device or change ptype.

> Gur Stavi wrote:
> > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk,
> struct fanout_args *args)
> > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > >>
> > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > >
> > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> >
> > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> >
> > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test that
> > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind" would be
> > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound device".
> > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add such
> > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the logic.
> >
> > Any preferences?
> 
> prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> 
> prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
> modified with the bind_lock held too.
> 
> Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
> a specific device or change ptype.

Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do you
mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something" happens ???

Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-zero
protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In that case
it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or does
the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0) sockets?

What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
to device id or 0?

psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
"all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
suggestions?

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk,
> > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > >>
> > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > >
> > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > >
> > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test that
> > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind" would be
> > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound device".
> > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add such
> > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the logic.
> > >
> > > Any preferences?
> > 
> > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > 
> > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
> > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > 
> > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
> > a specific device or change ptype.
> 
> Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do you
> mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something" happens ???

I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
 
> Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-zero
> protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In that case
> it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or does
> the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0) sockets?

I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.

All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
be fairly useless.

The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).

I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.

> What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> to device id or 0?
> 
> psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> suggestions?
> 
>

> I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
> Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing match.
> There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
> put them in the same fanout group.
> If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.

My mistake: testing match->prot_hook.dev takes care of that.

> Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk,
> > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > >
> > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > >
> > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test
> that
> > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind"
> would be
> > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound
> device".
> > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add
> such
> > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the
> logic.
> > > >
> > > > Any preferences?
> > >
> > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > >
> > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
> > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > >
> > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
> > > a specific device or change ptype.
> >
> > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do you
> > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something" happens
> ???
> 
> I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
> 
> > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-zero
> > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In that
> case
> > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or
> does
> > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> sockets?
> 
> I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.

I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that socket
becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.

> 
> All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
> be fairly useless.

Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket that
will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)

I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing match.
There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
put them in the same fanout group.
If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.

> The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
> to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> 
> I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
> Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
> whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> 
> > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> > to device id or 0?
> >
> > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > suggestions?
> >
> >
>

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk,
> > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be added
> > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > >
> > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to test
> > that
> > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock anyway.
> > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind"
> > would be
> > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound
> > device".
> > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can add
> > such
> > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the
> > logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any preferences?
> > > >
> > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > > >
> > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is only
> > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > >
> > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind to
> > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > >
> > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do you
> > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something" happens
> > ???
> > 
> > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
> > 
> > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-zero
> > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In that
> > case
> > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or
> > does
> > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > sockets?
> > 
> > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
> 
> I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that socket
> becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
> 
> > 
> > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
> > be fairly useless.
> 
> Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket that
> will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)

Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
This will break existing users.

Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.

> I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
> Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing match.
> There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
> put them in the same fanout group.
> If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.
> 
> > The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
> > to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> > 
> > I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
> > Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> > when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
> > whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> > 
> > > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> > > to device id or 0?
> > >
> > > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> > > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > > suggestions?
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
>

> Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock
> *sk,
> > > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be
> added
> > > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to
> test
> > > that
> > > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock
> anyway.
> > > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind"
> > > would be
> > > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound
> > > device".
> > > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can
> add
> > > such
> > > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the
> > > logic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any preferences?
> > > > >
> > > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > > > >
> > > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is
> only
> > > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind
> to
> > > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > > >
> > > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do
> you
> > > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something"
> happens
> > > ???
> > >
> > > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
> > >
> > > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-
> zero
> > > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In
> that
> > > case
> > > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or
> > > does
> > > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > > sockets?
> > >
> > > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
> >
> > I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that socket
> > becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> > during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
> >
> > >
> > > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
> > > be fairly useless.
> >
> > Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket that
> > will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> > if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)
> 
> Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
> This will break existing users.

For specific interface ifindex >= 1
For "any interface" ifindex == 0
ifindex is -1 only if the socket was created unbound with proto == 0
or for the rare race case that during re-bind the new dev became unlisted.
For both of these cases fanout should fail.

> 
> Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
> legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.
> 

With "branch", do you refer to performance or something else?
As I said in other mail, ETH_P_NONE could not be used in a fanout
before as well because socket cannot become RUNNING with proto == 0.
For performance, we removed the RUNNING condition and added this.
It is not like we need to perform 5M fanout registrations/sec. It is a
syscall after all.

> > I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
> > Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing
> match.
> > There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
> > put them in the same fanout group.
> > If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.
> >
> > > The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
> > > to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> > >
> > > I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
> > > Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> > > when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
> > > whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> > >
> > > > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > > > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> > > > to device id or 0?
> > > >
> > > > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> > > > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > > > suggestions?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock
> > *sk,
> > > > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be
> > added
> > > > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is to
> > test
> > > > that
> > > > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock
> > anyway.
> > > > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test "bind"
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as "bound
> > > > device".
> > > > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I can
> > add
> > > > such
> > > > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all the
> > > > logic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any preferences?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is bound.
> > > > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and ptype_head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and is
> > only
> > > > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD also
> > > > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to bind
> > to
> > > > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds" do
> > you
> > > > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something"
> > happens
> > > > ???
> > > >
> > > > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be maintained.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with non-
> > zero
> > > > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In
> > that
> > > > case
> > > > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a bug or
> > > > does
> > > > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > > > sockets?
> > > >
> > > > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
> > >
> > > I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that socket
> > > becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> > > during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group would
> > > > be fairly useless.
> > >
> > > Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket that
> > > will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> > > if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)
> > 
> > Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
> > This will break existing users.
> 
> For specific interface ifindex >= 1
> For "any interface" ifindex == 0
> ifindex is -1 only if the socket was created unbound with proto == 0
> or for the rare race case that during re-bind the new dev became unlisted.
> For both of these cases fanout should fail.

The only case where packet_create does not call __register_prot_hook
is if proto == 0. If proto is anything else, the socket will be bound,
whether to a device hook, or ptype_all. I don't think we need this
extra ifindex condition.
 
> > 
> > Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
> > legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.
> > 
> 
> With "branch", do you refer to performance or something else?
> As I said in other mail, ETH_P_NONE could not be used in a fanout
> before as well because socket cannot become RUNNING with proto == 0.

Good point.

> For performance, we removed the RUNNING condition and added this.
> It is not like we need to perform 5M fanout registrations/sec. It is a
> syscall after all.

It's as much about code complexity as performance. Both the patch and
resulting code should be as small and self-evident as possible.

Patch v3 introduces a lot of code churn.

If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.

> > > I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding ifindex
> > > Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing
> > match.
> > > There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and then
> > > put them in the same fanout group.
> > > If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.
> > >
> > > > The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once added
> > > > to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> > > >
> > > > I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members accounting.
> > > > Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> > > > when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet socket
> > > > whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> > > >
> > > > > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > > > > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets it
> > > > > to device id or 0?
> > > > >
> > > > > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that test
> > > > > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > > > > suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
>

> 
> If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.

I don't think that allowing ETH_P_NONE is relevant.
In my opinion the 2 options that should be considered to fail
fanout_add are:
1. Testing proto == 0
2. Testing proto == 0 || ifindex == -1

The only corner case that is caught by [2] and missed by [1] is
the "unlisted" case during do_bind. It is such a rare case that
probably no one will ever encounter bind "unlisted" followed by
FANOUT_ADD. And this is not a dangerous corner case that leads to
system crash.

However, being a purist, I see the major goal of code review to promote
correctness by identifying corner cases while improving style is a
secondary priority. Since we did identify this corner case in our
discussion I think we should still use [2].
I don't consider the code complex. In fact, to me, the ifindex clause
is a more understandable direct reason for failure than the proto which
is indirect. Having the ifindex clause helps figuring out the proto
clause.

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > 
> > If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> > patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> > return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.
> 
> I don't think that allowing ETH_P_NONE is relevant.
> In my opinion the 2 options that should be considered to fail
> fanout_add are:
> 1. Testing proto == 0
> 2. Testing proto == 0 || ifindex == -1
> 
> The only corner case that is caught by [2] and missed by [1] is
> the "unlisted" case during do_bind. It is such a rare case that
> probably no one will ever encounter bind "unlisted" followed by
> FANOUT_ADD. And this is not a dangerous corner case that leads to
> system crash.
> 
> However, being a purist, I see the major goal of code review to promote
> correctness by identifying corner cases while improving style is a
> secondary priority. Since we did identify this corner case in our
> discussion I think we should still use [2].
> I don't consider the code complex. In fact, to me, the ifindex clause
> is a more understandable direct reason for failure than the proto which
> is indirect. Having the ifindex clause helps figuring out the proto
> clause.

It's interesting that the unlisted fix does not return ENODEV, but
returns success and leaves the socket in an unbound state, equivalent
to binding to ETH_P_NONE and ifindex 0. This seems surprising behavior
to the caller.

On rereading that, I still do not see a purpose of special ifindex -1.

> Gur Stavi wrote:
> > >
> > > If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> > > patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> > > return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.
> >
> > I don't think that allowing ETH_P_NONE is relevant.
> > In my opinion the 2 options that should be considered to fail
> > fanout_add are:
> > 1. Testing proto == 0
> > 2. Testing proto == 0 || ifindex == -1
> >
> > The only corner case that is caught by [2] and missed by [1] is
> > the "unlisted" case during do_bind. It is such a rare case that
> > probably no one will ever encounter bind "unlisted" followed by
> > FANOUT_ADD. And this is not a dangerous corner case that leads to
> > system crash.
> >
> > However, being a purist, I see the major goal of code review to promote
> > correctness by identifying corner cases while improving style is a
> > secondary priority. Since we did identify this corner case in our
> > discussion I think we should still use [2].
> > I don't consider the code complex. In fact, to me, the ifindex clause
> > is a more understandable direct reason for failure than the proto which
> > is indirect. Having the ifindex clause helps figuring out the proto
> > clause.
> 
> It's interesting that the unlisted fix does not return ENODEV, but
> returns success and leaves the socket in an unbound state, equivalent
> to binding to ETH_P_NONE and ifindex 0. This seems surprising behavior
> to the caller.
> 
> On rereading that, I still do not see a purpose of special ifindex -1.
> 
>

Can this code be relevant?

		case NETDEV_UP:
			if (dev->ifindex == po->ifindex) {
				spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
				if (po->num)
					register_prot_hook(sk);
				spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
			}
			break;

Perhaps, although the socket failed to (re) find the device, the device
is still aware of the socket and we need the ifindex condition to fail.

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> > > > patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> > > > return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.
> > >
> > > I don't think that allowing ETH_P_NONE is relevant.
> > > In my opinion the 2 options that should be considered to fail
> > > fanout_add are:
> > > 1. Testing proto == 0
> > > 2. Testing proto == 0 || ifindex == -1
> > >
> > > The only corner case that is caught by [2] and missed by [1] is
> > > the "unlisted" case during do_bind. It is such a rare case that
> > > probably no one will ever encounter bind "unlisted" followed by
> > > FANOUT_ADD. And this is not a dangerous corner case that leads to
> > > system crash.
> > >
> > > However, being a purist, I see the major goal of code review to promote
> > > correctness by identifying corner cases while improving style is a
> > > secondary priority. Since we did identify this corner case in our
> > > discussion I think we should still use [2].
> > > I don't consider the code complex. In fact, to me, the ifindex clause
> > > is a more understandable direct reason for failure than the proto which
> > > is indirect. Having the ifindex clause helps figuring out the proto
> > > clause.
> > 
> > It's interesting that the unlisted fix does not return ENODEV, but
> > returns success and leaves the socket in an unbound state, equivalent
> > to binding to ETH_P_NONE and ifindex 0. This seems surprising behavior
> > to the caller.
> > 
> > On rereading that, I still do not see a purpose of special ifindex -1.
> > 
> >
> 
> Can this code be relevant?
> 
> 		case NETDEV_UP:
> 			if (dev->ifindex == po->ifindex) {
> 				spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> 				if (po->num)
> 					register_prot_hook(sk);
> 				spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
> 			}
> 			break;
> 
> Perhaps, although the socket failed to (re) find the device, the device
> is still aware of the socket and we need the ifindex condition to fail.

But the behavior is the same for ifindex -1 and 0. Devices always have
an ifindex >= 1.

> Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct
> sock
> > > *sk,
> > > > > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be
> > > added
> > > > > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is
> to
> > > test
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock
> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test
> "bind"
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as
> "bound
> > > > > device".
> > > > > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I
> can
> > > add
> > > > > such
> > > > > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all
> the
> > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any preferences?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is
> bound.
> > > > > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and
> ptype_head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and
> is
> > > only
> > > > > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD
> also
> > > > > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to
> bind
> > > to
> > > > > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds"
> do
> > > you
> > > > > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something"
> > > happens
> > > > > ???
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be
> maintained.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with
> non-
> > > zero
> > > > > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In
> > > that
> > > > > case
> > > > > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a
> bug or
> > > > > does
> > > > > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > > > > sockets?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that
> socket
> > > > becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> > > > during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group
> would
> > > > > be fairly useless.
> > > >
> > > > Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket
> that
> > > > will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> > > > if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)
> > >
> > > Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
> > > This will break existing users.
> >
> > For specific interface ifindex >= 1
> > For "any interface" ifindex == 0
> > ifindex is -1 only if the socket was created unbound with proto == 0
> > or for the rare race case that during re-bind the new dev became
> unlisted.
> > For both of these cases fanout should fail.
> 
> The only case where packet_create does not call __register_prot_hook
> is if proto == 0. If proto is anything else, the socket will be bound,
> whether to a device hook, or ptype_all. I don't think we need this
> extra ifindex condition.
> 

Even though "unbound" is an unlikely state for such a socket the code
Should still address this state consistently. If do_bind sets ifindex
to -1 on the unlikely unlisted scenario so should packet_create on the
more likely proto == 0 scenario.

> > >
> > > Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
> > > legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.
> > >
> >
> > With "branch", do you refer to performance or something else?
> > As I said in other mail, ETH_P_NONE could not be used in a fanout
> > before as well because socket cannot become RUNNING with proto == 0.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> > For performance, we removed the RUNNING condition and added this.
> > It is not like we need to perform 5M fanout registrations/sec. It is a
> > syscall after all.
> 
> It's as much about code complexity as performance. Both the patch and
> resulting code should be as small and self-evident as possible.
> 
> Patch v3 introduces a lot of code churn.

Did you look at a side by side comparison? There is really very little
extra code.

> 
> If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.
> 

I am not the one to decide if opening it is a good idea but it will be
ironic if a patch with the intention to remove the only-RUNNING
restriction will end up allowing never-RUNNING sockets into a fanout
group.

> > > > I realized another possible problem. We should consider adding
> ifindex
> > > > Field to struct packet_fanout to be used for lookup of an existing
> > > match.
> > > > There is little sense to bind sockets to different interfaces and
> then
> > > > put them in the same fanout group.
> > > > If you agree, I can prepare a separate patch for that.
> > > >
> > > > > The type and dev must match that of the fanout group, and once
> added
> > > > > to a fanout group can no longer be changed (bind will fail).
> > > > >
> > > > > I briefy considered the reason might be max_num_members
> accounting.
> > > > > Since f->num_members counts running sockets. But that is not used
> > > > > when tracking membership of the group, sk_ref is. Every packet
> socket
> > > > > whose po->rollover is increased increases this refcount.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What about using ifindex to detect bind? Initialize it to -1 in
> > > > > > packet_create and ensure that packet_do_bind, on success, sets
> it
> > > > > > to device id or 0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > psock_fanout, should probably be extended with scenarios that
> test
> > > > > > "all devices" and all/specific protocols. Any specific scenario
> > > > > > suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Gur Stavi wrote:
> > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > > > Gur Stavi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> @@ -1846,21 +1846,21 @@ static int fanout_add(struct
> > sock
> > > > *sk,
> > > > > > > > struct fanout_args *args)
> > > > > > > > > >>  	err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>  	spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
> > > > > > > > > >> -	if (packet_sock_flag(po, PACKET_SOCK_RUNNING) &&
> > > > > > > > > >> -	    match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > > > >> +	if (match->type == type &&
> > > > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
> > > > > > > > > >>  	    match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Remaining unaddressed issue is that the socket can now be
> > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > before being bound. See comment in v1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I extended the psock_fanout test with unbound fanout test.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as I understand, the easiest way to verify bind is
> > to
> > > > test
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > po->prot_hook.dev != NULL, since we are under a bind_lock
> > > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > > But perhaps a more readable and direct approach to test
> > "bind"
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > to test po->ifindex != -1, as ifindex is commented as
> > "bound
> > > > > > device".
> > > > > > > > > However, at the moment ifindex is not initialized to -1, I
> > can
> > > > add
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > initialization, but perhaps I do not fully understand all
> > the
> > > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any preferences?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > prot_hook.dev is not necessarily set if a packet socket is
> > bound.
> > > > > > > > It may be bound to any device. See dev_add_pack and
> > ptype_head.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > prot_hook.type, on the other hand, must be set if bound and
> > is
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > modified with the bind_lock held too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, and in packet_create. But setsockopt PACKET_FANOUT_ADD
> > also
> > > > > > > > succeeds in case bind() was not called explicitly first to
> > bind
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > a specific device or change ptype.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please clarify the last paragraph? When you say "also succeeds"
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > > mean SHOULD succeed or MAY SUCCEED by mistake if "something"
> > > > happens
> > > > > > ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mean it succeeds currently. Which behavior must then be
> > maintained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you refer to the following scenario: socket is created with
> > non-
> > > > zero
> > > > > > > protocol and becomes RUNNING "without bind" for all devices. In
> > > > that
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > it can be added to FANOUT without bind. Is that considered a
> > bug or
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > the bind requirement for fanout only apply for all-protocol (0)
> > > > > > sockets?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm beginning to think that this bind requirement is not needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with that. I think that is an historical mistake that
> > socket
> > > > > becomes implicitly bound to all interfaces if a protocol is defined
> > > > > during create. Without this bind requirement would make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All type and dev are valid, even if an ETH_P_NONE fanout group
> > would
> > > > > > be fairly useless.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fanout is all about RX, I think that refusing fanout for socket
> > that
> > > > > will not receive any packet is OK. The condition can be:
> > > > > if (po->ifindex == -1 || !po->num)
> > > >
> > > > Fanout is not limited to sockets bound to a specific interface.
> > > > This will break existing users.
> > >
> > > For specific interface ifindex >= 1
> > > For "any interface" ifindex == 0
> > > ifindex is -1 only if the socket was created unbound with proto == 0
> > > or for the rare race case that during re-bind the new dev became
> > unlisted.
> > > For both of these cases fanout should fail.
> > 
> > The only case where packet_create does not call __register_prot_hook
> > is if proto == 0. If proto is anything else, the socket will be bound,
> > whether to a device hook, or ptype_all. I don't think we need this
> > extra ifindex condition.
> > 
> 
> Even though "unbound" is an unlikely state for such a socket the code
> Should still address this state consistently. If do_bind sets ifindex
> to -1 on the unlikely unlisted scenario so should packet_create on the
> more likely proto == 0 scenario.

do_bind sets it to -1 for unlisted probably to copy existing behavior
in packet_notifier on NETDEV_DOWN.

But as far as I can tell nothing that uses po->ifindex differentiates
between 0 and -1. It just means that no actual device ifindex matches.

> > > >
> > > > Binding to ETH_P_NONE is useless, but we're not going to slow down
> > > > legitimate users with branches for cases that are harmless.
> > > >
> > >
> > > With "branch", do you refer to performance or something else?
> > > As I said in other mail, ETH_P_NONE could not be used in a fanout
> > > before as well because socket cannot become RUNNING with proto == 0.
> > 
> > Good point.
> > 
> > > For performance, we removed the RUNNING condition and added this.
> > > It is not like we need to perform 5M fanout registrations/sec. It is a
> > > syscall after all.
> > 
> > It's as much about code complexity as performance. Both the patch and
> > resulting code should be as small and self-evident as possible.
> > 
> > Patch v3 introduces a lot of code churn.
> 
> Did you look at a side by side comparison?

Obviously

> There is really very little
> extra code.

 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

vs

 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

for v2.

> > 
> > If we don't care about opening up fanout groups to ETH_P_NONE, then
> > patch v2 seems sufficient. If explicitly blocking this, the ENXIO
> > return can be added, but ideally without touching the other lines.
> > 
> 
> I am not the one to decide if opening it is a good idea but it will be
> ironic if a patch with the intention to remove the only-RUNNING
> restriction will end up allowing never-RUNNING sockets into a fanout
> group.

It's fine to catch that, seem to just be this change?

        spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
-       if (po->running &&
+       if (po->num != ETH_P_NONE &&
            match->type == type &&
            match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
            match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {