[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250522084759.6cfe3f6d@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 08:47:59 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "dongchenchen (A)" <dongchenchen2@...wei.com>
Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, <hawk@...nel.org>,
<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <horms@...nel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<zhangchangzhong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG Report] KASAN: slab-use-after-free in
page_pool_recycle_in_ring
On Thu, 22 May 2025 23:17:32 +0800 dongchenchen (A) wrote:
> Hi, Jakub
> Maybe we can fix the problem as follow:
Yes! a couple of minor nit picks below..
> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> index 7745ad924ae2..de3fa33d6775 100644
> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> @@ -707,19 +707,18 @@ void page_pool_return_page(struct page_pool *pool, netmem_ref netmem)
>
> static bool page_pool_recycle_in_ring(struct page_pool *pool, netmem_ref netmem)
> {
> + bool in_softirq;
> int ret;
> - /* BH protection not needed if current is softirq */
> - if (in_softirq())
> - ret = ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
> - else
> - ret = ptr_ring_produce_bh(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
>
> - if (!ret) {
> + /* BH protection not needed if current is softirq */
> + in_softirq = page_pool_producer_lock(pool);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
Maybe we can flip the return value here we won't have to negate it below
and at return? Like this:
ret = !__ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, (__force void *)netmem);
and adjust subsequent code
> + if (!ret)
> recycle_stat_inc(pool, ring);
> - return true;
> - }
>
> - return false;
> + page_pool_producer_unlock(pool, in_softirq);
> +
> + return ret ? false : true;
> }
>
> /* Only allow direct recycling in special circumstances, into the
>
> @@ -1091,10 +1090,16 @@ static void page_pool_scrub(struct page_pool *pool)
>
> static int page_pool_release(struct page_pool *pool)
> {
> + bool in_softirq;
> int inflight;
>
> + /* Acquire producer lock to make sure we don't race with another thread
> + * returning a netmem to the ptr_ring.
> + */
> + in_softirq = page_pool_producer_lock(pool);
> page_pool_scrub(pool);
> inflight = page_pool_inflight(pool, true);
> + page_pool_producer_unlock(pool, in_softirq);
As I suggested earlier we don't have to lock the consumer, taking both
locks has lock ordering implications. My preference would be:
page_pool_scrub(pool);
inflight = page_pool_inflight(pool, true);
+ /* Acquire producer lock to make sure producers have exited. */
+ in_softirq = page_pool_producer_lock(pool);
+ page_pool_producer_unlock(pool, in_softirq);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists