netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1] page_pool: avoid infinite loop to schedule delayed worker

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: <CAL+tcoCiwc3TH+iB+6OpbTr6OPtO-gpmH3407hZ8G+CDrGUWmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:37:16 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, hawk@...nel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, 
	horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] page_pool: avoid infinite loop to schedule
 delayed worker

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 2:53 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:38:28 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> > > Initializing a work isn't much cost, is it?
> >
> > Not that much, but it's pointless to start a kworker under this
> > circumstance, right? And it will flood the dmesg.
>
> There's a seriously buggy driver potentially corrupting memory,
> who cares if we start a kworker. Please don't complicate the
> code for extremely rare scenarios.

My points are:
1) stop the kworker because it's useless.
2) avoid flooding so many warnings and calltraces in the dmesg

The modified code is not complicated.

>
> > > Just to state the obvious the current patch will not catch the
> > > situation when there is traffic outstanding (inflight is positive)
> > > at the time of detach from the driver. But then the inflight goes
> > > negative before the work / time kicks in.
> >
> > Right, only mitigating the side effect. I will add this statement as
> > well while keeping the code itself as-is.
>
> What do you mean by that?! We're telling you your code is wrong.

Sorry, I misunderstood your suggestion. So the patch I replied
yesterday to Mina seems acceptable?

Thanks,
Jason