Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159073-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240424165646.1625690-2-dtatulea@nvidia.com> <4ba023709249e11d97c78a98ac7db3b37f419960.camel@nvidia.com>
 <CAHS8izMbAJHatnM6SvsZVLPY+N7LgGJg03pSdNfSRFCufGh9Zg@mail.gmail.com> <4c20b500c2ed615aba424c0f3c7a79f5f5a04171.camel@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4c20b500c2ed615aba424c0f3c7a79f5f5a04171.camel@nvidia.com>
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:20:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHS8izPkRJyLctmyj+Ppc5j3Qq5O1u3aPe5h9mnFNHDU2OxA=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Fix one page_pool page leak from skb_frag_unref
To: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@nvidia.com>
Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>, "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>, 
	"ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"jacob.e.keller@intel.com" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>, 
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>, 
	"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>, "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:17=E2=80=AFAM Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@nvidia.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:08 -0700, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >  If that doesn't work, I think I prefer
> > reverting a580ea994fd3 ("net: mirror skb frag ref/unref helpers")
> > rather than merging this fix to make sure we removed the underlying
> > cause of the issue.
> This is the safest bet.
>
> So, to recap, I see 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) Revert a580ea994fd3 ("net: mirror skb frag ref/unref helpers"): safe, =
but it
> will probably have to come back in one way or another.
> 2) Drop the recycle checks from skb_frag_ref/unref: this enforces the rul=
e of
> always referencing/dereferencing pages based on their type (page_pool or
> normal).
>

If this works, I would be very happy. I personally think ref/unref
should be done based on the page type. For me the net stack using the
regular {get|put}_page on a pp page isn't great. It requires special
handling to make sure the ref + unref are in sync. Also if the last pp
ref is dropped while there are pending regular refs,
__page_pool_page_can_be_recycled() check will fail and the page will
not be recycled.

On the other hand, since 0a149ab78ee2 ("page_pool: transition to
reference count management after page draining") I'm not sure there is
any reason to continue to use get/put_page on pp-pages, we can use the
new pp-ref instead.

I don't see any regressions with this diff (needs cleanup), but your
test setup seems much much better than mine (I think this is the
second reffing issue you manage to repro):

diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff_ref.h b/include/linux/skbuff_ref.h
index 4dcdbe9fbc5f..4c72227dce1b 100644
--- a/include/linux/skbuff_ref.h
+++ b/include/linux/skbuff_ref.h
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static inline bool napi_pp_get_page(struct page *page)
 static inline void skb_page_ref(struct page *page, bool recycle)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
-       if (recycle && napi_pp_get_page(page))
+       if (napi_pp_get_page(page))
                return;
 #endif
        get_page(page);
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static inline void
 skb_page_unref(struct page *page, bool recycle)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
-       if (recycle && napi_pp_put_page(page))
+       if (napi_pp_put_page(page))
                return;
 #endif
        put_page(page);


--=20
Thanks,
Mina