netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 bpf] xsk: fix immature cq descriptor production

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: <CAADnVQKOwfFsccUxC1MmtdETkbEw34MaV+YwV=f4vssP=+scVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:22:40 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>, 
	Eryk Kubanski <e.kubanski@...tner.samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf] xsk: fix immature cq descriptor production

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 6:39 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > +               list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &XSKCB(skb)->addrs_list, addr_node) {
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems no need to use xxx_safe() since the whole process (from
> > > > > allocating skb to freeing skb) makes sure each skb can be processed
> > > > > atomically?
> > > >
> > > > We're deleting nodes from linked list so we need the @tmp for further list
> > > > traversal, I'm not following your statement about atomicity here?
> > >
> > > I mean this list is chained around each skb. It's not possible for one
> > > skb to do the allocation operation and free operation at the same
> > > time, right? That means it's not possible for one list to do the
> > > delete operation and add operation at the same time. If so, the
> > > xxx_safe() seems unneeded.
> >
> > _safe() variants are meant to allow you to delete nodes while traversing
> > the list.
> > You wouldn't be able to traverse the list when in body of the loop nodes
> > are deleted as the ->next pointer is poisoned by list_del(). _safe()
> > variant utilizes additional 'tmp' parameter to allow you doing this
> > operation.
>
> Sure, this is exactly how _safe() works. My take is we don't need to
> use _safe() to keep safety because it's not possible for one reader
> traversing the entire addr list while another one is trying to delete
> node. If it can happen, then _safe() does make sense.

Jason,
sounds like you're still confused what "_safe" suffix does.
"_safe" doesn't help with concurrent access at all.