Re: [PATCH 32/33] net: add a new bind_add method

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:00:25PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	lock_sock(sk);
> > +	err = sctp_do_bind(sk, (union sctp_addr *)addr, af->sockaddr_len);
> > +	if (!err)
> > +		err = sctp_send_asconf_add_ip(sk, addr, 1);
> 
> Some problems here.
> - addr may contain a list of addresses
> - the addresses, then, are not being validated
> - sctp_do_bind may fail, on which it requires some undoing
>   (like sctp_bindx_add does)
> - code duplication with sctp_setsockopt_bindx.

sctp_do_bind and thus this function only support a single address, as
that is the only thing that the DLM code requires.  I could move the
user copy out of sctp_setsockopt_bindx and reuse that, but it is a
rather rcane API.

> 
> This patch will conflict with David's one,
> [PATCH net-next] sctp: Pull the user copies out of the individual sockopt functions.

Do you have a link?  A quick google search just finds your mail that
I'm replying to.

> (I'll finish reviewing it in the sequence)
> 
> AFAICT, this patch could reuse/build on his work in there. The goal is
> pretty much the same and would avoid the issues above.
> 
> This patch could, then, point the new bind_add proto op to the updated
> sctp_setsockopt_bindx almost directly.
> 
> Question then is: dlm never removes an addr from the bind list. Do we
> want to add ops for both? Or one that handles both operations?
> Anyhow, having the add operation but not the del seems very weird to
> me.

We generally only add operations for things that we actually use.
bind_del is another logical op, but we can trivially add that when we
need it.