netdev - __dev_kfree_skb_any() and use of dev_kfree

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <32568fab-02d4-0484-3237-5d8dc09e273d@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:07:26 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, edumazet@...gle.com,
        nhorman@...driver.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net
Subject: __dev_kfree_skb_any() and use of dev_kfree_skb()

Hi Eric, Neil,

Should not __dev_kfree_skb_any() call kfree_skb() instead of
dev_kfree_skb() which is aliased to consumes_skb() and therefore does
not flag the skb with SKB_REASON_DROPPED?

If we take the in_irq() || irqs_disabled() branch, we will be calling
__dev_kfree_skb_irq() which takes care of setting the skb_free_reason
frmo the caller.

Is there an implied semantic with dev_kfree_skb() that it means it was
freed by the network device and therefore this equals to a consumption
(not a drop)? The comment above dev_kfree_skb_any() seems to imply this
should be a context unaware replacement for kfree_skb().

Thanks!
-- 
Florian