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;
Date:   Fri, 9 Jul 2021 20:29:44 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@microsoft.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v2] skbuff: Fix a potential race while recycling
 page_pool packets
Message-ID: <YOiHiGi3bY8g2CEd@enceladus>
References: <20210709062943.101532-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
 <CAKgT0UdQmrzZufHpvRBtWgbFdTCVmKH4Vx6GzwtmC9FuM8K+hg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKgT0UdQmrzZufHpvRBtWgbFdTCVmKH4Vx6GzwtmC9FuM8K+hg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 07:34:38AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 11:30 PM Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > As Alexander points out, when we are trying to recycle a cloned/expanded
> > SKB we might trigger a race.  The recycling code relies on the
> > pp_recycle bit to trigger,  which we carry over to cloned SKBs.
> > If that cloned SKB gets expanded or if we get references to the frags,
> > call skbb_release_data() and overwrite skb->head, we are creating separate
> > instances accessing the same page frags.  Since the skb_release_data()
> > will first try to recycle the frags,  there's a potential race between
> > the original and cloned SKB, since both will have the pp_recycle bit set.
> >
> > Fix this by explicitly those SKBs not recyclable.
> > The atomic_sub_return effectively limits us to a single release case,
> > and when we are calling skb_release_data we are also releasing the
> > option to perform the recycling, or releasing the pages from the page pool.
> >
> > Fixes: 6a5bcd84e886 ("page_pool: Allow drivers to hint on SKB recycling")
> > Reported-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>
> > Suggested-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Set the recycle bit to 0 during skb_release_data instead of the
> >   individual fucntions triggering the issue, in order to catch all
> >   cases
> >  net/core/skbuff.c | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > index 12aabcda6db2..f91f09a824be 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -663,7 +663,7 @@ static void skb_release_data(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >         if (skb->cloned &&
> >             atomic_sub_return(skb->nohdr ? (1 << SKB_DATAREF_SHIFT) + 1 : 1,
> >                               &shinfo->dataref))
> > -               return;
> > +               goto exit;
> >
> >         skb_zcopy_clear(skb, true);
> >
> > @@ -674,6 +674,8 @@ static void skb_release_data(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >                 kfree_skb_list(shinfo->frag_list);
> >
> >         skb_free_head(skb);
> > +exit:
> > +       skb->pp_recycle = 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > --
> > 2.32.0.rc0
> >
> 
> This is probably the cleanest approach with the least amount of
> change, but one thing I am concerned with in this approach is that we
> end up having to dirty a cacheline that I am not sure is otherwise
> touched during skb cleanup. I am not sure if that will be an issue or
> not. If it is then an alternative or follow-on patch could move the
> pp_recycle flag into the skb_shared_info flags itself and then make
> certain that we clear it around the same time we are setting
> shinfo->dataref to 1.
> 

Yep that's a viable alternative. Let's see if there's any measurable
impact.

> Otherwise this looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>

Thanks Alexander!