Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJht_ENNvG=VrD_Z4w+G=4_TCD0Rv--CQAkFUrHWTh4Cz_NT2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210409073046.GI3697@techsingularity.net> <CAJht_EPXS3wVoNyaD6edqLPKvDTG2vg4qxiGuWBgWpFsNhB-4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210409084436.GK3697@techsingularity.net> <CAJht_EPrdujG_0QHM1vc2yrgwwKMQiFzUAK2pgR4dS4z9-Xknw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87ab3d13-f95d-07c5-fc6a-fb33e32685e5@gmail.com> <CAJht_EOmcOdKGKnoUQDJD-=mnHOK0MKiV0+4Epty5H5DMED-qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3c79924f-3603-b259-935a-2e913dc3afcd@gmail.com> <CAJht_EN_N=H8xwVkTT7WiwmdRTeD-L+tM3Z6hu86ebbT_JpBDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJht_EN_N=H8xwVkTT7WiwmdRTeD-L+tM3Z6hu86ebbT_JpBDw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:40:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJht_EMd19EyOHjBEcsWdNBBx+2Mqknq7KavxW8vn=d+06oUQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Problem in pfmemalloc skb handling in net/core/dev.c
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, jslaby@suse.cz,
        Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
        Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:12 PM Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. "skb_pfmemalloc_protocol"
> cannot guarantee pfmemalloc skbs are not delivered to unrelated
> protocols, because "__netif_receive_skb" will sometimes treat
> pfmemalloc skbs as normal skbs.

> I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. Please look at the
> code of "__netif_receive_skb" and see what will happen when
> "sk_memalloc_socks()" is false and "skb_pfmemalloc(skb)" is true.

Do you see the problem now? Just think what happens when
"skb_pfmemalloc(skb)" is true and "sk_memalloc_socks()" has just
changed to "false", and whether in this case "skb_pfmemalloc_protocol"
still takes any effect.