Overall, we encountered a warning [1] that can be triggered by running the selftest I provided.
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission between two endpoints. However, BPF can use sockops to perform additional operations when TCP completes the three-way handshake. The issue arose because we used sockmap in sockops, which replaces sk->sk_prot and some handlers. Since subflows also have their own specialized handlers, this creates a conflict and leads to traffic failure. Therefore, we need to reject operations targeting subflows.
This patchset simply prevents the combination of subflows and sockmap without changing any functionality.
A complete integration of MPTCP and sockmap would require more effort, for example, we would need to retrieve the parent socket from subflows in sockmap and implement handlers like read_skb.
If maintainers don't object, we can further improve this in subsequent work.
[1] truncated warning: [ 18.234652] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 18.234664] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 388 at net/mptcp/protocol.c:68 mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234726] Modules linked in: [ 18.234755] RIP: 0010:mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234762] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000cf3cf8 EFLAGS: 00010202 [ 18.234800] PKRU: 55555554 [ 18.234806] Call Trace: [ 18.234810] <TASK> [ 18.234837] do_accept+0xeb/0x190 [ 18.234861] ? __x64_sys_pselect6+0x61/0x80 [ 18.234898] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x12/0x30 [ 18.234915] ? alloc_fd+0x11e/0x190 [ 18.234925] __sys_accept4+0x8c/0x100 [ 18.234930] __x64_sys_accept+0x1f/0x30 [ 18.234933] x64_sys_call+0x202f/0x20f0 [ 18.234966] do_syscall_64+0x72/0x9a0 [ 18.234979] ? switch_fpu_return+0x60/0xf0 [ 18.234993] ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0xdb/0x1e0 [ 18.235002] ? irqentry_exit+0x3f/0x50 [ 18.235005] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235022] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235025] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235028] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 18.235066] </TASK> [ 18.235109] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
--- v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020060503.325369-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev/T... Some advice suggested by Jakub Sitnicki
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/a0a2b87119a06c5ffaa51427a0964a05534fe6f1@linux... Some advice from Matthieu Baerts.
Jiayuan Chen (3): net,mptcp: fix proto fallback detection with BPF sockmap bpf,sockmap: disallow MPTCP sockets from sockmap selftests/bpf: Add mptcp test with sockmap
net/core/sock_map.c | 27 ++++ net/mptcp/protocol.c | 9 +- .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++ .../selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c | 43 +++++ 4 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c
When the server has MPTCP enabled but receives a non-MP-capable request from a client, it calls mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops().
Since non-MPTCP connections are allowed to use sockmap, which replaces sk->sk_prot, using sk->sk_prot to determine the IP version in mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() becomes unreliable. This can lead to assigning incorrect ops to sk->sk_socket->ops.
Additionally, when BPF Sockmap modifies the protocol handlers, the original WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot) check would falsely trigger warnings.
Fix this by using the more stable sk_family to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6 connections, ensuring correct fallback protocol operations are selected even when BPF Sockmap has modified the socket protocol handlers.
Fixes: 0b4f33def7bb ("mptcp: fix tcp fallback crash") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen jiayuan.chen@linux.dev Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com --- net/mptcp/protocol.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c index 0292162a14ee..2393741bc310 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c @@ -61,11 +61,16 @@ static u64 mptcp_wnd_end(const struct mptcp_sock *msk)
static const struct proto_ops *mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(const struct sock *sk) { + /* When BPF sockmap is used, it may replace sk->sk_prot. + * Using sk_family is a reliable way to determine the IP version. + */ + unsigned short family = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_family); + #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP_IPV6) - if (sk->sk_prot == &tcpv6_prot) + if (family == AF_INET6) return &inet6_stream_ops; #endif - WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot); + WARN_ON_ONCE(family != AF_INET); return &inet_stream_ops; }
Hi Jiayuan,
On 23/10/2025 14:54, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
When the server has MPTCP enabled but receives a non-MP-capable request from a client, it calls mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops().
Since non-MPTCP connections are allowed to use sockmap, which replaces sk->sk_prot, using sk->sk_prot to determine the IP version in mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() becomes unreliable. This can lead to assigning incorrect ops to sk->sk_socket->ops.
Additionally, when BPF Sockmap modifies the protocol handlers, the original WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot) check would falsely trigger warnings.
Fix this by using the more stable sk_family to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6 connections, ensuring correct fallback protocol operations are selected even when BPF Sockmap has modified the socket protocol handlers.
Fixes: 0b4f33def7bb ("mptcp: fix tcp fallback crash") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen jiayuan.chen@linux.dev Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com
net/mptcp/protocol.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c index 0292162a14ee..2393741bc310 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c @@ -61,11 +61,16 @@ static u64 mptcp_wnd_end(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) static const struct proto_ops *mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(const struct sock *sk) {
- /* When BPF sockmap is used, it may replace sk->sk_prot.
* Using sk_family is a reliable way to determine the IP version.*/- unsigned short family = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_family);
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP_IPV6)
- if (sk->sk_prot == &tcpv6_prot)
- if (family == AF_INET6) return &inet6_stream_ops;
#endif
- WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot);
- WARN_ON_ONCE(family != AF_INET); return &inet_stream_ops;
Just to be sure: is there anything in BPF modifying sk->sk_socket->ops? Because that's what mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() will do somehow.
In other words, is it always fine to set inet(6)_stream_ops? (I guess yes, but better to be sure while we are looking at that :) )
}
Cheers, Matt
October 23, 2025 at 22:10, "Matthieu Baerts" <matttbe@kernel.org mailto:matttbe@kernel.org?to=%22Matthieu%20Baerts%22%20%3Cmatttbe%40kernel.org%3E > wrote:
Hi Jiayuan,
On 23/10/2025 14:54, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
When the server has MPTCP enabled but receives a non-MP-capable request from a client, it calls mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(). Since non-MPTCP connections are allowed to use sockmap, which replaces sk->sk_prot, using sk->sk_prot to determine the IP version in mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() becomes unreliable. This can lead to assigning incorrect ops to sk->sk_socket->ops. Additionally, when BPF Sockmap modifies the protocol handlers, the original WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot) check would falsely trigger warnings. Fix this by using the more stable sk_family to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6 connections, ensuring correct fallback protocol operations are selected even when BPF Sockmap has modified the socket protocol handlers. Fixes: 0b4f33def7bb ("mptcp: fix tcp fallback crash") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen jiayuan.chen@linux.dev Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com
net/mptcp/protocol.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c index 0292162a14ee..2393741bc310 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c @@ -61,11 +61,16 @@ static u64 mptcp_wnd_end(const struct mptcp_sock *msk) static const struct proto_ops *mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(const struct sock *sk) {
- /* When BPF sockmap is used, it may replace sk->sk_prot.
- Using sk_family is a reliable way to determine the IP version.
- */
- unsigned short family = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_family);
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP_IPV6)
- if (sk->sk_prot == &tcpv6_prot)
- if (family == AF_INET6)
return &inet6_stream_ops; #endif
- WARN_ON_ONCE(sk->sk_prot != &tcp_prot);
- WARN_ON_ONCE(family != AF_INET);
return &inet_stream_ops;
Just to be sure: is there anything in BPF modifying sk->sk_socket->ops? Because that's what mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() will do somehow.
In other words, is it always fine to set inet(6)_stream_ops? (I guess yes, but better to be sure while we are looking at that :) )
Hi Matt,
I can confirm that on the BPF side, the only special operations targeting sockets currently are sockmap/sockhash. Their implementations do not modify sk->sk_socket->ops. Currently, they only modify sk->prot, because the BPF side typically operates on 'struct sock' and does not concern itself with 'struct socket'.
Therefore, setting inet(6)_stream_ops is fine.
Thanks, Jiayuan
}
Cheers, Matt -- Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
On 10/23/25 2:54 PM, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
When the server has MPTCP enabled but receives a non-MP-capable request from a client, it calls mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops().
Since non-MPTCP connections are allowed to use sockmap, which replaces sk->sk_prot, using sk->sk_prot to determine the IP version in mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() becomes unreliable. This can lead to assigning incorrect ops to sk->sk_socket->ops.
I don't see how sockmap could modify the to-be-accepted socket sk_prot before mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(), as such call happens before the fd is installed, and AFAICS sockmap can only fetch sockets via fds.
Is this patch needed?
/P
On 10/28/25 12:30 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On 10/23/25 2:54 PM, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
When the server has MPTCP enabled but receives a non-MP-capable request from a client, it calls mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops().
Since non-MPTCP connections are allowed to use sockmap, which replaces sk->sk_prot, using sk->sk_prot to determine the IP version in mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() becomes unreliable. This can lead to assigning incorrect ops to sk->sk_socket->ops.
I don't see how sockmap could modify the to-be-accepted socket sk_prot before mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops(), as such call happens before the fd is installed, and AFAICS sockmap can only fetch sockets via fds.
Is this patch needed?
Matttbe explained off-list the details of how that could happen. I think the commit message here must be more verbose to explain clearly the whys, even to those non proficient in sockmap like me.
Thanks,
Paolo
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission, and these sockets should not be added to sockmap because MPTCP sets specialized data_ready handlers that would be overridden by sockmap.
Additionally, for the parent socket of MPTCP subflows (plain TCP socket), MPTCP sk requires specific protocol handling that conflicts with sockmap's operation(mptcp_prot).
This patch adds proper checks to reject MPTCP subflows and their parent sockets from being added to sockmap, while preserving compatibility with reuseport functionality for listening MPTCP sockets.
We cannot add this logic to sock_map_sk_state_allowed() because the sockops path doesn't execute this function, and the socket state coming from sockops might be in states like SYN_RECV. So moving sock_map_sk_state_allowed() to sock_{map,hash}_update_common() is not appropriate. Instead, we introduce a new function to handle MPTCP checks.
Fixes: 0b4f33def7bb ("mptcp: fix tcp fallback crash") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen jiayuan.chen@linux.dev Suggested-by: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com --- net/core/sock_map.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c index 5947b38e4f8b..5be38cdfb5cc 100644 --- a/net/core/sock_map.c +++ b/net/core/sock_map.c @@ -467,6 +467,27 @@ static int sock_map_get_next_key(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *next) return 0; }
+/* Disallow MPTCP subflows and their parent sockets. However, a TCP_LISTEN + * MPTCP socket is permitted because sockmap can also serve for reuseport + * socket selection. + */ +static inline bool sock_map_sk_type_allowed(const struct sock *sk) +{ + /* MPTCP subflows are not intended for data I/O by user */ + if (sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk)) + goto disallow; + + /* MPTCP parents use mptcp_prot - not supported with sockmap yet */ + if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_MPTCP && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN) + goto disallow; + + return true; + +disallow: + pr_err_once("sockmap/sockhash: MPTCP sockets are not supported\n"); + return false; +} + static int sock_map_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, u32 idx, struct sock *sk, u64 flags) { @@ -482,6 +503,9 @@ static int sock_map_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, u32 idx, if (unlikely(idx >= map->max_entries)) return -E2BIG;
+ if (!sock_map_sk_type_allowed(sk)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + link = sk_psock_init_link(); if (!link) return -ENOMEM; @@ -1003,6 +1027,9 @@ static int sock_hash_update_common(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, if (unlikely(flags > BPF_EXIST)) return -EINVAL;
+ if (!sock_map_sk_type_allowed(sk)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + link = sk_psock_init_link(); if (!link) return -ENOMEM;
On 10/23/25 2:54 PM, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission, and these sockets should not be added to sockmap because MPTCP sets specialized data_ready handlers that would be overridden by sockmap.
Additionally, for the parent socket of MPTCP subflows (plain TCP socket), MPTCP sk requires specific protocol handling that conflicts with sockmap's operation(mptcp_prot).
This patch adds proper checks to reject MPTCP subflows and their parent sockets from being added to sockmap, while preserving compatibility with reuseport functionality for listening MPTCP sockets.
It's unclear to me why that is safe. sockmap is going to change the listener msk proto ops.
The listener could disconnect and create an egress connection, still using the wrong ops.
I think sockmap should always be prevented for mptcp socket, or at least a solid explanation of why such exception is safe should be included in the commit message.
Note that the first option allows for solving the issue entirely in the mptcp code, setting dummy/noop psock_update_sk_prot for mptcp sockets and mptcp subflows.
/P
Add test cases to verify that when MPTCP falls back to plain TCP sockets, they can properly work with sockmap.
Additionally, add test cases to ensure that sockmap correctly rejects MPTCP sockets as expected.
Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen jiayuan.chen@linux.dev --- .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++ .../selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c | 43 +++++ 2 files changed, 193 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c index f8eb7f9d4fd2..56c556f603cc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c @@ -6,11 +6,14 @@ #include <netinet/in.h> #include <test_progs.h> #include <unistd.h> +#include <error.h> #include "cgroup_helpers.h" #include "network_helpers.h" +#include "socket_helpers.h" #include "mptcp_sock.skel.h" #include "mptcpify.skel.h" #include "mptcp_subflow.skel.h" +#include "mptcp_sockmap.skel.h"
#define NS_TEST "mptcp_ns" #define ADDR_1 "10.0.1.1" @@ -436,6 +439,151 @@ static void test_subflow(void) close(cgroup_fd); }
+/* Test sockmap on MPTCP server handling non-mp-capable clients. */ +static void test_sockmap_with_mptcp_fallback(struct mptcp_sockmap *skel) +{ + int listen_fd = -1, client_fd1 = -1, client_fd2 = -1; + int server_fd1 = -1, server_fd2 = -1, sent, recvd; + char snd[9] = "123456789"; + char rcv[10]; + + /* start server with MPTCP enabled */ + listen_fd = start_mptcp_server(AF_INET, NULL, 0, 0); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(listen_fd, "redirect:start_mptcp_server")) + return; + + skel->bss->trace_port = ntohs(get_socket_local_port(listen_fd)); + skel->bss->sk_index = 0; + /* create client without MPTCP enabled */ + client_fd1 = connect_to_fd_opts(listen_fd, NULL); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(client_fd1, "redirect:connect_to_fd")) + goto end; + + server_fd1 = xaccept_nonblock(listen_fd, NULL, NULL); + skel->bss->sk_index = 1; + client_fd2 = connect_to_fd_opts(listen_fd, NULL); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(client_fd2, "redirect:connect_to_fd")) + goto end; + + server_fd2 = xaccept_nonblock(listen_fd, NULL, NULL); + /* test normal redirect behavior: data sent by client_fd1 can be + * received by client_fd2 + */ + skel->bss->redirect_idx = 1; + sent = xsend(client_fd1, snd, sizeof(snd), 0); + if (!ASSERT_EQ(sent, sizeof(snd), "redirect:xsend(client_fd1)")) + goto end; + + /* try to recv more bytes to avoid truncation check */ + recvd = recv_timeout(client_fd2, rcv, sizeof(rcv), MSG_DONTWAIT, 2); + if (!ASSERT_EQ(recvd, sizeof(snd), "redirect:recv(client_fd2)")) + goto end; + +end: + if (client_fd1 > 1) + close(client_fd1); + if (client_fd2 > 1) + close(client_fd2); + if (server_fd1 > 0) + close(server_fd1); + if (server_fd2 > 0) + close(server_fd2); + close(listen_fd); +} + +/* Test sockmap rejection of MPTCP sockets - both server and client sides. */ +static void test_sockmap_reject_mptcp(struct mptcp_sockmap *skel) +{ + int client_fd1 = -1, client_fd2 = -1; + int listen_fd = -1, server_fd = -1; + int err, zero = 0; + + /* start server with MPTCP enabled */ + listen_fd = start_mptcp_server(AF_INET, NULL, 0, 0); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(listen_fd, "start_mptcp_server")) + return; + + skel->bss->trace_port = ntohs(get_socket_local_port(listen_fd)); + skel->bss->sk_index = 0; + /* create client with MPTCP enabled */ + client_fd1 = connect_to_fd(listen_fd, 0); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(client_fd1, "connect_to_fd client_fd1")) + goto end; + + /* bpf_sock_map_update() called from sockops should reject MPTCP sk */ + if (!ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->helper_ret, -EOPNOTSUPP, "should reject")) + goto end; + + /* set trace_port = -1 to stop sockops */ + skel->bss->trace_port = -1; + client_fd2 = connect_to_fd(listen_fd, 0); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(client_fd2, "connect_to_fd client_fd2")) + goto end; + + server_fd = xaccept_nonblock(listen_fd, NULL, NULL); + err = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sock_map), + &zero, &server_fd, BPF_NOEXIST); + if (!ASSERT_EQ(err, -EOPNOTSUPP, "server should be disallowed")) + goto end; + + /* MPTCP client should also be disallowed */ + err = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sock_map), + &zero, &client_fd1, BPF_NOEXIST); + if (!ASSERT_EQ(err, -EOPNOTSUPP, "client should be disallowed")) + goto end; +end: + if (client_fd1 > 0) + close(client_fd1); + if (client_fd2 > 0) + close(client_fd2); + if (server_fd > 0) + close(server_fd); + close(listen_fd); +} + +static void test_mptcp_sockmap(void) +{ + struct mptcp_sockmap *skel; + struct netns_obj *netns; + int cgroup_fd, err; + + cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/mptcp_sockmap"); + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(cgroup_fd, "join_cgroup: mptcp_sockmap")) + return; + + skel = mptcp_sockmap__open_and_load(); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel_open_load: mptcp_sockmap")) + goto close_cgroup; + + skel->links.mptcp_sockmap_inject = + bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.mptcp_sockmap_inject, cgroup_fd); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->links.mptcp_sockmap_inject, "attach sockmap")) + goto skel_destroy; + + err = bpf_prog_attach(bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.mptcp_sockmap_redirect), + bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sock_map), + BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT, 0); + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_attach stream verdict")) + goto skel_destroy; + + netns = netns_new(NS_TEST, true); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(netns, "netns_new: mptcp_sockmap")) + goto skel_destroy; + + if (endpoint_init("subflow") < 0) + goto close_netns; + + test_sockmap_with_mptcp_fallback(skel); + test_sockmap_reject_mptcp(skel); + +close_netns: + netns_free(netns); +skel_destroy: + mptcp_sockmap__destroy(skel); +close_cgroup: + close(cgroup_fd); +} + void test_mptcp(void) { if (test__start_subtest("base")) @@ -444,4 +592,6 @@ void test_mptcp(void) test_mptcpify(); if (test__start_subtest("subflow")) test_subflow(); + if (test__start_subtest("sockmap")) + test_mptcp_sockmap(); } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..d4eef0cbadb9 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +#include "bpf_tracing_net.h" + +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; + +int sk_index; +int redirect_idx; +int trace_port; +int helper_ret; +struct { + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP); + __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32)); + __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32)); + __uint(max_entries, 100); +} sock_map SEC(".maps"); + +SEC("sockops") +int mptcp_sockmap_inject(struct bpf_sock_ops *skops) +{ + struct bpf_sock *sk; + + /* only accept specified connection */ + if (skops->local_port != trace_port || + skops->op != BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB) + return 1; + + sk = skops->sk; + if (!sk) + return 1; + + /* update sk handler */ + helper_ret = bpf_sock_map_update(skops, &sock_map, &sk_index, BPF_NOEXIST); + + return 1; +} + +SEC("sk_skb/stream_verdict") +int mptcp_sockmap_redirect(struct __sk_buff *skb) +{ + /* redirect skb to the sk under sock_map[redirect_idx] */ + return bpf_sk_redirect_map(skb, &sock_map, redirect_idx, 0); +}
Hi Jiayuan,
Thank you for the v3. Sorry, I didn't have the opportunity to react on the v2.
On 23/10/2025 14:54, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
Overall, we encountered a warning [1] that can be triggered by running the selftest I provided.
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission between two endpoints. However, BPF can use sockops to perform additional operations when TCP completes the three-way handshake. The issue arose because we used sockmap in sockops, which replaces sk->sk_prot and some handlers.
Do you know at what stage the sk->sk_prot is modified with sockmap? When switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED?
Is it before or after having set "tcp_sk(sk)->is_mptcp = 0" (in subflow_ulp_fallback(), coming from subflow_syn_recv_sock() I suppose)?
If MPTCP is still being used (sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk)), I guess sockmap should never touch the in-kernel TCP subflows: they will likely only carry a part of the data. Instead, sockmap should act on the MPTCP sockets, not the in-kernel TCP subflows.
There is one particular case to take into consideration: an MPTCP connection can fallback to "plain" TCP before being used by the userspace. Typically, that's when an MPTCP listening socket receives a "plain" TCP request (without MPTCP): a "plain" TCP socket will then be created, and exposed to the userspace. In this case, sk_is_mptcp(sk) will return false. I guess that's the case you are trying to handle, right? (It might help BPF reviewers to mention that in the commit message(s).)
I would then say that sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot should not point to tcp_bpf_update_proto() when MPTCP is being used (or this callback should take the MPTCP case into account, but I guess no). In case of fallback before the accept() stage, the socket can then be used as a "plain" TCP one. I guess when tcp_bpf_update_proto() will be called, sk_prot is pointing to tcp(v6)_prot, not the MPTCP subflow override one, right?
Since subflows also have their own specialized handlers, this creates a conflict and leads to traffic failure. Therefore, we need to reject operations targeting subflows.
Would it not work to set sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot to NULL for the v4 and v6 subflows (in mptcp_subflow_init()) for the moment while sockmap is not supported with MPTCP? This might save you some checks in sock_map.c, no?
This patchset simply prevents the combination of subflows and sockmap without changing any functionality.
In your case, you have an MPTCP listening socket, but you receive a TCP request, right? The "sockmap update" is done when switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED, when !sk_is_mptcp(sk), but that's before mptcp_stream_accept(). That's why sk->sk_prot has been modified, but it is fine to look at sk_family, and return inet(6)_stream_ops, right?
A more important question: what will typically happen in your case if you receive an MPTCP request and sockmap is then not supported? Will the connection be rejected or stay in a strange state because the userspace will not expect that? In these cases, would it not be better to disallow sockmap usage while the MPTCP support is not available? The userspace would then get an error from the beginning that the protocol is not supported, and should then not create an MPTCP socket in this case for the moment, no?
I can understand that the switch from TCP to MPTCP was probably done globally, and this transition should be as seamless as possible, but it should not cause a regression with MPTCP requests. An alternative could be to force a fallback to TCP when sockmap is used, even when an MPTCP request is received, but not sure if it is practical to do, and might be strange from the user point of view.
A complete integration of MPTCP and sockmap would require more effort, for example, we would need to retrieve the parent socket from subflows in sockmap and implement handlers like read_skb.
If maintainers don't object, we can further improve this in subsequent work.
That would be great to add MPTCP support in sockmap! As mentioned above, this should be done on the MPTCP socket. I guess the TCP "in-kernel" subflows should not be modified.
[1] truncated warning: [ 18.234652] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 18.234664] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 388 at net/mptcp/protocol.c:68 mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234726] Modules linked in: [ 18.234755] RIP: 0010:mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234762] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000cf3cf8 EFLAGS: 00010202 [ 18.234800] PKRU: 55555554 [ 18.234806] Call Trace: [ 18.234810] <TASK> [ 18.234837] do_accept+0xeb/0x190 [ 18.234861] ? __x64_sys_pselect6+0x61/0x80 [ 18.234898] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x12/0x30 [ 18.234915] ? alloc_fd+0x11e/0x190 [ 18.234925] __sys_accept4+0x8c/0x100 [ 18.234930] __x64_sys_accept+0x1f/0x30 [ 18.234933] x64_sys_call+0x202f/0x20f0 [ 18.234966] do_syscall_64+0x72/0x9a0 [ 18.234979] ? switch_fpu_return+0x60/0xf0 [ 18.234993] ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0xdb/0x1e0 [ 18.235002] ? irqentry_exit+0x3f/0x50 [ 18.235005] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235022] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235025] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x50/0xa0 [ 18.235028] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 18.235066] </TASK> [ 18.235109] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Please next time use the ./scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh if possible. (and strip the timestamps if it is not giving useful info)
Just to be sure: is it the warning you get on top of net or net-next? Or an older version? (Always useful to mention the base)
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020060503.325369-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev/T... Some advice suggested by Jakub Sitnicki
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/a0a2b87119a06c5ffaa51427a0964a05534fe6f1@linux... Some advice from Matthieu Baerts.
(It usually helps reviewers to add more details in the notes/changelog for the individual patch)
Jiayuan Chen (3): net,mptcp: fix proto fallback detection with BPF sockmap
(detail: you can use the "mptcp:" prefix, no need to add "net,")
bpf,sockmap: disallow MPTCP sockets from sockmap selftests/bpf: Add mptcp test with sockmap
net/core/sock_map.c | 27 ++++ net/mptcp/protocol.c | 9 +- .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++ .../selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c | 43 +++++ 4 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_sockmap.c
Cheers, Matt
2025/10/23 22:10, "Matthieu Baerts" <matttbe@kernel.org mailto:matttbe@kernel.org?to=%22Matthieu%20Baerts%22%20%3Cmatttbe%40kernel.org%3E > 写到:
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission between two endpoints. However, BPF can use sockops to perform additional operations when TCP completes the three-way handshake. The issue arose because we used sockmap in sockops, which replaces sk->sk_prot and some handlers.
Do you know at what stage the sk->sk_prot is modified with sockmap? When switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED? Is it before or after having set "tcp_sk(sk)->is_mptcp = 0" (in subflow_ulp_fallback(), coming from subflow_syn_recv_sock() I suppose)?
Yes, there are two call points. One is after executing subflow_syn_recv_sock(): tcp_init_transfer(sk, BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB, skb);
So at this point, is_mptcp = 0. The other call point is when userspace calls the BPF interface, passing in an fd while it's not a subflow but a parent sk with its own mptcp_prot we will also reject it.
You can refer to my provided selftest, which covers these scenarios.
If MPTCP is still being used (sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk)), I guess sockmap should never touch the in-kernel TCP subflows: they will likely only carry a part of the data. Instead, sockmap should act on the MPTCP sockets, not the in-kernel TCP subflows.
Yes, I agree.
For full functionality, we need to retrieve the parent socket from MPTCP and integrate it with sockmap, rather than simply rejecting.
The current implementation rejects MPTCP because I previously attempted to add sockmap support for MPTCP, but it required implementing many interfaces and would take considerable time.
So for now, I'm proposing this as a fix to resolve the immediate issue. Subsequently, we can continue working on fully integrating MPTCP with sockmap.
There is one particular case to take into consideration: an MPTCP connection can fallback to "plain" TCP before being used by the userspace. Typically, that's when an MPTCP listening socket receives a "plain" TCP request (without MPTCP): a "plain" TCP socket will then be created, and exposed to the userspace. In this case, sk_is_mptcp(sk) will return false. I guess that's the case you are trying to handle, right? (It might help BPF reviewers to mention that in the commit message(s).)
Yes, this is primarily the case we're addressing. I will add this description to the commit message.
I would then say that sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot should not point to tcp_bpf_update_proto() when MPTCP is being used (or this callback should take the MPTCP case into account, but I guess no). In case of fallback before the accept() stage, the socket can then be used as a "plain" TCP one. I guess when tcp_bpf_update_proto() will be called, sk_prot is pointing to tcp(v6)_prot, not the MPTCP subflow override one, right?
Yes, when tcp_bpf_update_proto is called the sk_prot is pointing to tcp(v6)_prot. subflow_syn_recv_sock mptcp_subflow_drop_ctx subflow_ulp_fallback mptcp_subflow_ops_undo_override -> reset sk_prot to original one
So [patch 2/3] aims to prevent psock_update_sk_prot from being executed on subflows.
Actually, replacing the subflow's callbacks is also incorrect, as you mentioned earlier, because subflows only carry part of the data. By checking for subflows early and skipping subsequent steps, we avoid incorrect logic.
Furthermore, there's another risk: if an IPv6 request comes in and we perform the replacement, MPTCP will roll it back to inet_stream_ops. I haven't delved too deeply into the potential impact, but I noticed that inet6_release has many V6-specific cleanup procedures not present in inet_release.
Since subflows also have their own specialized handlers, this creates a conflict and leads to traffic failure. Therefore, we need to reject operations targeting subflows.
Would it not work to set sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot to NULL for the v4 and v6 subflows (in mptcp_subflow_init()) for the moment while sockmap is not supported with MPTCP? This might save you some checks in sock_map.c, no?
This seems like a reliable alternative I hadn't considered initially.
However, adding the check on the BPF side serves another purpose: to explicitly warn users that sockmap and MPTCP are incompatible.
Since the latest Golang version enables MPTCP server by default, and if the client doesn't support MPTCP, it falls back to TCP logic. We want to print a clear message informing users who have upgraded to the latest Golang and are using sockmap.
Perhaps we could add a function like sk_is_mptcp_subflow() in the MPTCP side? The implementation would simply be sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk).
Implementing this check logic on the BPF side might become invalid if MPTCP internals change later; placing it in the MPTCP side might be a better choice.
This patchset simply prevents the combination of subflows and sockmap without changing any functionality.
In your case, you have an MPTCP listening socket, but you receive a TCP request, right? The "sockmap update" is done when switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED, when !sk_is_mptcp(sk), but that's before mptcp_stream_accept(). That's why sk->sk_prot has been modified, but it is fine to look at sk_family, and return inet(6)_stream_ops, right?
I believe so. Since MPTCP is fundamentally based on TCP, using sk_family to determine which ops to fall back to should be sufficient.
However, strictly speaking, this [patch 1/3] might not even be necessary if we prevent the sk_prot replacement for subflows at the sockmap layer.
A more important question: what will typically happen in your case if you receive an MPTCP request and sockmap is then not supported? Will the connection be rejected or stay in a strange state because the userspace will not expect that? In these cases, would it not be better to disallow sockmap usage while the MPTCP support is not available? The userspace would then get an error from the beginning that the protocol is not supported, and should then not create an MPTCP socket in this case for the moment, no?
I can understand that the switch from TCP to MPTCP was probably done globally, and this transition should be as seamless as possible, but it should not cause a regression with MPTCP requests. An alternative could be to force a fallback to TCP when sockmap is used, even when an MPTCP request is received, but not sure if it is practical to do, and might be strange from the user point of view.
Actually, I understand this not as an MPTCP regression, but as a sockmap regression.
Let me explain how users typically use sockmap:
Users typically create multiple sockets on a host and program using BPF+sockmap to enable fast data redirection. This involves intercepting data sent or received by one socket and redirecting it to the send or receive queue of another socket.
This requires explicit user programming. The goal is that when multiple microservices on one host need to communicate, they can bypass most of the network stack and avoid data copies between user and kernel space.
However, when an MPTCP request occurs, this redirection flow fails.
Since the sockmap workflow typically occurs after the three-way handshake, rolling back at that point might be too late, and undoing the logic for MPTCP would be very complex.
Regardless, the reality is that MPTCP and sockmap are already conflicting, and this has been the case for some time. So I think our first step is to catch specific behavior on the BPF side and print a message "sockmap/sockhash: MPTCP sockets are not supported\n", informing users to either stop using sockmap or not use MPTCP.
As for the logic to check for subflows, I think implementing it in subflow.c would be beneficial, as this logic would likely be useful later if we want to support MPTCP + sockmap.
Furthermore, this commit also addresses the issue of incorrectly selecting inet_stream_ops due to the subflow prot replacement, as mentioned above.
A complete integration of MPTCP and sockmap would require more effort, for example, we would need to retrieve the parent socket from subflows in sockmap and implement handlers like read_skb. If maintainers don't object, we can further improve this in subsequent work.
That would be great to add MPTCP support in sockmap! As mentioned above, this should be done on the MPTCP socket. I guess the TCP "in-kernel" subflows should not be modified.
I think we should first fix the issue by having sockmap reject operations on subflows. Subsequently, we can work on fully integrating sockmap with MPTCP as a feature (which would require implementing some handlers).
[1] truncated warning: [ 18.234652] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 18.234664] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 388 at net/mptcp/protocol.c:68 mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234726] Modules linked in: [ 18.234755] RIP: 0010:mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234762] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000cf3cf8 EFLAGS: 00010202
[...]
Please next time use the ./scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh if possible. (and strip the timestamps if it is not giving useful info) Just to be sure: is it the warning you get on top of net or net-next? Or an older version? (Always useful to mention the base)
Thank you, Matthieu. I will pay attention to this.
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020060503.325369-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev/T... Some advice suggested by Jakub Sitnicki v1: https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/a0a2b87119a06c5ffaa51427a0964a05534fe6f1@linux... Some advice from Matthieu Baerts.
(It usually helps reviewers to add more details in the notes/changelog for the individual patch)
Thank you, Matthieu. I will provide more detailed descriptions in the future.
Best regards, Jiayuan
Hi Jiayuan,
Thank you for your reply!
On 24/10/2025 06:13, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
2025/10/23 22:10, "Matthieu Baerts" <matttbe@kernel.org mailto:matttbe@kernel.org?to=%22Matthieu%20Baerts%22%20%3Cmatttbe%40kernel.org%3E > 写到:
MPTCP creates subflows for data transmission between two endpoints. However, BPF can use sockops to perform additional operations when TCP completes the three-way handshake. The issue arose because we used sockmap in sockops, which replaces sk->sk_prot and some handlers.
Do you know at what stage the sk->sk_prot is modified with sockmap? When switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED? Is it before or after having set "tcp_sk(sk)->is_mptcp = 0" (in subflow_ulp_fallback(), coming from subflow_syn_recv_sock() I suppose)?
Yes, there are two call points. One is after executing subflow_syn_recv_sock(): tcp_init_transfer(sk, BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB, skb);
So at this point, is_mptcp = 0. The other call point is when userspace calls the BPF interface, passing in an fd while it's not a subflow but a parent sk with its own mptcp_prot we will also reject it.
OK, thank you for the explanations! I think your commit message in patch 1/3 should then explain the conditions to have mptcp_fallback_tcp_ops() being called with a different sk_prot. In short: MPTCP listening socket, TCP request without MPTCP, sk_prot reset to TCP (subflow_syn_recv_sock) when SYN RECV, then reset by sockmap when ESTABLISHED, then accept part and sk_prot is not the expected one.
You can refer to my provided selftest, which covers these scenarios.
If MPTCP is still being used (sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk)), I guess sockmap should never touch the in-kernel TCP subflows: they will likely only carry a part of the data. Instead, sockmap should act on the MPTCP sockets, not the in-kernel TCP subflows.
Yes, I agree.
For full functionality, we need to retrieve the parent socket from MPTCP and integrate it with sockmap, rather than simply rejecting.
We should be careful when adding such exceptions. I will add more details below.
The current implementation rejects MPTCP because I previously attempted to add sockmap support for MPTCP, but it required implementing many interfaces and would take considerable time.
So for now, I'm proposing this as a fix to resolve the immediate issue. Subsequently, we can continue working on fully integrating MPTCP with sockmap.
It makes sense to start with the fix for stable, then the implementation later. I think the implementation should not be that complex: it is just that it has to be done at MPTCP level, not TCP. sockmap supports different protocol, and it doesn't seem to be TCP specific, so that should be feasible.
There is one particular case to take into consideration: an MPTCP connection can fallback to "plain" TCP before being used by the userspace. Typically, that's when an MPTCP listening socket receives a "plain" TCP request (without MPTCP): a "plain" TCP socket will then be created, and exposed to the userspace. In this case, sk_is_mptcp(sk) will return false. I guess that's the case you are trying to handle, right? (It might help BPF reviewers to mention that in the commit message(s).)
Yes, this is primarily the case we're addressing. I will add this description to the commit message.
Thanks!
I would then say that sk->sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot should not point to tcp_bpf_update_proto() when MPTCP is being used (or this callback should take the MPTCP case into account, but I guess no). In case of fallback before the accept() stage, the socket can then be used as a "plain" TCP one. I guess when tcp_bpf_update_proto() will be called, sk_prot is pointing to tcp(v6)_prot, not the MPTCP subflow override one, right?
Yes, when tcp_bpf_update_proto is called the sk_prot is pointing to tcp(v6)_prot. subflow_syn_recv_sock mptcp_subflow_drop_ctx subflow_ulp_fallback mptcp_subflow_ops_undo_override -> reset sk_prot to original one
I see, it would be good to add that in the commit message as well.
So [patch 2/3] aims to prevent psock_update_sk_prot from being executed on subflows.
Actually, replacing the subflow's callbacks is also incorrect, as you mentioned earlier, because subflows only carry part of the data. By checking for subflows early and skipping subsequent steps, we avoid incorrect logic.
Furthermore, there's another risk: if an IPv6 request comes in and we perform the replacement, MPTCP will roll it back to inet_stream_ops. I haven't delved too deeply into the potential impact, but I noticed that inet6_release has many V6-specific cleanup procedures not present in inet_release.
That's why we have the WARN_ON_ONCE(): this sk_prot was not expected, a fix in the code is required if another value is accepted.
Since subflows also have their own specialized handlers, this creates a conflict and leads to traffic failure. Therefore, we need to reject operations targeting subflows.
Would it not work to set sk_prot->psock_update_sk_prot to NULL for the v4 and v6 subflows (in mptcp_subflow_init()) for the moment while sockmap is not supported with MPTCP? This might save you some checks in sock_map.c, no?
This seems like a reliable alternative I hadn't considered initially.
However, adding the check on the BPF side serves another purpose: to explicitly warn users that sockmap and MPTCP are incompatible.
Since the latest Golang version enables MPTCP server by default, and if the client doesn't support MPTCP, it falls back to TCP logic. We want to print a clear message informing users who have upgraded to the latest Golang and are using sockmap.
Perhaps we could add a function like sk_is_mptcp_subflow() in the MPTCP side? The implementation would simply be sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_is_mptcp(sk).
Implementing this check logic on the BPF side might become invalid if MPTCP internals change later; placing it in the MPTCP side might be a better choice.
I can understand that adding an error message can be helpful, but I don't think we should add MPTCP specific checks in sockmap for the moment.
This patchset simply prevents the combination of subflows and sockmap without changing any functionality.
In your case, you have an MPTCP listening socket, but you receive a TCP request, right? The "sockmap update" is done when switching to TCP_ESTABLISHED, when !sk_is_mptcp(sk), but that's before mptcp_stream_accept(). That's why sk->sk_prot has been modified, but it is fine to look at sk_family, and return inet(6)_stream_ops, right?
I believe so. Since MPTCP is fundamentally based on TCP, using sk_family to determine which ops to fall back to should be sufficient.
However, strictly speaking, this [patch 1/3] might not even be necessary if we prevent the sk_prot replacement for subflows at the sockmap layer.
A more important question: what will typically happen in your case if you receive an MPTCP request and sockmap is then not supported? Will the connection be rejected or stay in a strange state because the userspace will not expect that? In these cases, would it not be better to disallow sockmap usage while the MPTCP support is not available? The userspace would then get an error from the beginning that the protocol is not supported, and should then not create an MPTCP socket in this case for the moment, no?
I can understand that the switch from TCP to MPTCP was probably done globally, and this transition should be as seamless as possible, but it should not cause a regression with MPTCP requests. An alternative could be to force a fallback to TCP when sockmap is used, even when an MPTCP request is received, but not sure if it is practical to do, and might be strange from the user point of view.
Actually, I understand this not as an MPTCP regression, but as a sockmap regression.
Let me explain how users typically use sockmap:
Users typically create multiple sockets on a host and program using BPF+sockmap to enable fast data redirection. This involves intercepting data sent or received by one socket and redirecting it to the send or receive queue of another socket.
This requires explicit user programming. The goal is that when multiple microservices on one host need to communicate, they can bypass most of the network stack and avoid data copies between user and kernel space.
However, when an MPTCP request occurs, this redirection flow fails.
This part bothers me a bit. Does it mean that when the userspace creates a TCP listening socket (IPPROTO_TCP), MPTCP requests will be accepted, but MPTCP will not be used ; but when an MPTCP socket is used instead, MPTCP requests will be rejected?
If yes, it might be clearer not to allow sockmap on connections created from MPTCP sockets. But when looking at sockmap and what's happening when a TCP socket is created following a "plain TCP" request, we would need specific MPTCP code to catch that in sockmap...
Since the sockmap workflow typically occurs after the three-way handshake, rolling back at that point might be too late, and undoing the logic for MPTCP would be very complex.
Regardless, the reality is that MPTCP and sockmap are already conflicting, and this has been the case for some time. So I think our first step is to catch specific behavior on the BPF side and print a message "sockmap/sockhash: MPTCP sockets are not supported\n", informing users to either stop using sockmap or not use MPTCP.
As for the logic to check for subflows, I think implementing it in subflow.c would be beneficial, as this logic would likely be useful later if we want to support MPTCP + sockmap.
Probably yes.
Furthermore, this commit also addresses the issue of incorrectly selecting inet_stream_ops due to the subflow prot replacement, as mentioned above.
(indeed, but this seems to happen only when sk_prot has been replaced by sockmap :) )
A complete integration of MPTCP and sockmap would require more effort, for example, we would need to retrieve the parent socket from subflows in sockmap and implement handlers like read_skb. If maintainers don't object, we can further improve this in subsequent work.
That would be great to add MPTCP support in sockmap! As mentioned above, this should be done on the MPTCP socket. I guess the TCP "in-kernel" subflows should not be modified.
I think we should first fix the issue by having sockmap reject operations on subflows. Subsequently, we can work on fully integrating sockmap with MPTCP as a feature (which would require implementing some handlers).
OK for me!
[1] truncated warning: [ 18.234652] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 18.234664] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 388 at net/mptcp/protocol.c:68 mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234726] Modules linked in: [ 18.234755] RIP: 0010:mptcp_stream_accept+0x34c/0x380 [ 18.234762] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000cf3cf8 EFLAGS: 00010202
[...]
Please next time use the ./scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh if possible. (and strip the timestamps if it is not giving useful info) Just to be sure: is it the warning you get on top of net or net-next? Or an older version? (Always useful to mention the base)
Thank you, Matthieu. I will pay attention to this.
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020060503.325369-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev/T... Some advice suggested by Jakub Sitnicki v1: https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/a0a2b87119a06c5ffaa51427a0964a05534fe6f1@linux... Some advice from Matthieu Baerts.
(It usually helps reviewers to add more details in the notes/changelog for the individual patch)
Thank you, Matthieu. I will provide more detailed descriptions in the future.
Thanks!
So for the v4, patch 2/3 would be replaced by one setting ...
tcp_prot_override.psock_update_sk_prot = NULL; (...) tcpv6_prot_override.psock_update_sk_prot = NULL;
... in mptcp_subflow_init(). (+ more details for patch 1/3).
From there, we can discuss with other maintainers what to do with the MPTCP listening socket + sockmap case. And in parallel, we can also discuss MPTCP support with sockmap. WDYT?
Cheers, Matt
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Jiayuan Chen -
Matthieu Baerts -
Paolo Abeni