netdev - Re: i40e: Fix preempt count leak in napi poll tracepoint

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: <877bslbg2g.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 01:25:11 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <joe@...a.to>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Tony Nguyen
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: i40e: Fix preempt count leak in napi poll tracepoint

On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 23:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09 2026 at 14:07, Joe Damato wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 11:50:23AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Using get_cpu() in the tracepoint assignment causes an obvious preempt
>>> count leak because nothing invokes put_cpu() to undo it:
>>> 
>>>   softirq: huh, entered softirq 3 NET_RX with preempt_count 00000100, exited with 00000101?
>>> 
>>> This clearly has seen a lot of testing in the last 3+ years...
>>
>> I'm the author who introduced the bug. FWIW, I did use it quite a bit when I
>> had i40e devices.
>
> Right, but always with PREEMPT_NONE and no debug option which would
> enforce PREEMPT_COUNT ...

Forgot to mention that's what is required before submitting patches
according to Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst

But who cares about documentation aside of the people who write it?

Thanks,

        tglx