On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:49:35PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:In the case where the client writes a packet and then closes the socket, because we receive EPOLLIN|EPOLLRDHUP together we have a choice of whether to close the socket immediately, or read the packet and then close the socket. Choose the latter. This should improve fuzzing coverage and arguably is a better choice even for regular use since dropping packets on close is bad. See-also: https://archives.passt.top/passt-dev/20221117171805.3746f53a@elisabeth/ Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com>Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au>--- tap.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c index 9998127..d97af6a 100644 --- a/tap.c +++ b/tap.c @@ -1106,13 +1106,13 @@ void tap_handler(struct ctx *c, int fd, uint32_t events, return; } - if (events & (EPOLLRDHUP | EPOLLHUP | EPOLLERR)) - goto reinit; - if ((c->mode == MODE_PASST && tap_handler_passt(c, now)) || (c->mode == MODE_PASTA && tap_handler_pasta(c, now))) goto reinit; + if (events & (EPOLLRDHUP | EPOLLHUP | EPOLLERR)) + goto reinit; + return; reinit: if (c->one_off) {-- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson