linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aO5aJ9dN5xIIdmNE@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:11:51 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	usamaarif642@...il.com, riel@...riel.com, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under
 spinlock

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 03:10:51AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Fix a AA deadlock in refill_skbs() where memory allocation while holding
> skb_pool->lock can trigger a recursive lock acquisition attempt.
> 
> The deadlock scenario occurs when the system is under severe memory
> pressure:
> 
> 1. refill_skbs() acquires skb_pool->lock (spinlock)
> 2. alloc_skb() is called while holding the lock
> 3. Memory allocator fails and calls slab_out_of_memory()
> 4. This triggers printk() for the OOM warning
> 5. The console output path calls netpoll_send_udp()
> 6. netpoll_send_udp() attempts to acquire the same skb_pool->lock
> 7. Deadlock: the lock is already held by the same CPU
> 
> Call stack:
>   refill_skbs()
>     spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock)    <- lock acquired
>     __alloc_skb()
>       kmem_cache_alloc_node_noprof()
>         slab_out_of_memory()
>           printk()
>             console_flush_all()
>               netpoll_send_udp()
>                 skb_dequeue()
>                   spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock)     <- deadlock attempt
> 
> This bug was exposed by commit 248f6571fd4c51 ("netpoll: Optimize skb
> refilling on critical path") which removed refill_skbs() from the
> critical path (where nested printk was being deferred), letting nested
> printk being calld form inside refill_skbs()
> 
> Refactor refill_skbs() to never allocate memory while holding
> the spinlock.
> 
> Another possible solution to fix this problem is protecting the
> refill_skbs() from nested printks, basically calling
> printk_deferred_{enter,exit}() in refill_skbs(), then, any nested
> pr_warn() would be deferred.
> 
> I prefer tthis approach, given I _think_ it might be a good idea to move
> the alloc_skb() from GFP_ATOMIC to GFP_KERNEL in the future, so, having
> the alloc_skb() outside of the lock will be necessary step.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> Fixes: 248f6571fd4c51 ("netpoll: Optimize skb refilling on critical path")
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Added a return after the successful path (Rik van Riel)
> - Changed the Fixes tag to point to the commit that exposed the problem.
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251013-fix_netpoll_aa-v1-1-94a1091f92f0@debian.org
> ---
>  net/core/netpoll.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> index 60a05d3b7c249..c19dada9283ce 100644
> --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> @@ -232,14 +232,28 @@ static void refill_skbs(struct netpoll *np)
>  
>  	skb_pool = &np->skb_pool;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> -	while (skb_pool->qlen < MAX_SKBS) {
> +	while (1) {
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> +		if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> +			goto unlock;
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> +
>  		skb = alloc_skb(MAX_SKB_SIZE, GFP_ATOMIC);
>  		if (!skb)
> -			break;
> +			return;
>  
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> +		if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> +			/* Discard if len got increased (TOCTOU) */
> +			goto discard;
>  		__skb_queue_tail(skb_pool, skb);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
>  	}
> +
> +	return;

Maybe it is worth leaving alone for clarity.
And certainly it does no harm.
But the line above is never reached.

Flagged by Smatch.

> +discard:
> +	dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> +unlock:
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> 
> ---
> base-commit: c5705a2a4aa35350e504b72a94b5c71c3754833c
> change-id: 20251013-fix_netpoll_aa-c991ac5f2138
> 
> Best regards,
> --  
> Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
>