On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 05:10:31PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:09:36AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 05:31:32PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > > From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > [...] > > > > I could be wrong here, but I think net->vsock.loopback being set before > > vsock_core_register() prevents racing with net->vsock.loopback reads. We > > could add a lock to make sure and to make the protection explicit > > though. > > I see, talkink about vsock_core_register(), I was thinking about, > extending it, maybe passing a struct with all parameters (e.g. transport > type, net callbacks, etc.). In this way we can easily check if the type > of transport is allowed to register net callbacks or not. > > Also because currently we don't do any check in > __vsock_register_net_callbacks() about transport type or even about > overriding calls. > That makes a lot of sense. I'll make that change if pernet_operations doesn't solve the probelem. Best, Bobby
