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: <20250211184619.7d69c99d@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:46:19 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.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 Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:37:22 -0800 Mina Almasry wrote:
> Isn't it the condition in page_pool_release_retry() that you want. to
> modify? That is the one that handles whether the worker keeps spinning
> no?

+1

A code comment may be useful BTW.

> I also wonder also whether if the check in page_pool_release() itself
> needs to be:
> 
> if (inflight < 0)
>   __page_pool_destroy();
> 
> otherwise the pool will never be destroyed no?

It's probably safer to leak the memory than risk a crash if 
we undercounted and some page will try to return itself later?