Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160888-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
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>
 <CAHS8izPkRJyLctmyj+Ppc5j3Qq5O1u3aPe5h9mnFNHDU2OxA=A@mail.gmail.com> <20240426160859.0d85908e@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240426160859.0d85908e@kernel.org>
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:24:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHS8izNs-LV=6FE39sjF3V7qVfveOsOAOJ_X62TSzWpvamsS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Fix one page_pool page leak from skb_frag_unref
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@nvidia.com>, "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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:09=E2=80=AFPM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:20:59 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > -       if (recycle && napi_pp_get_page(page))
> > +       if (napi_pp_get_page(page))
>
> Pretty sure you can't do that. The "recycle" here is a concurrency
> guarantee. A guarantee someone is holding a pp ref on that page,
> a ref which will not go away while napi_pp_get_page() is executing.

I don't mean to argue, but I think the get_page()/put_page() pair we
do in the page ref path is susceptible to the same issue. AFAIU it's
not safe to get_page() if another CPU can be dropping the last ref,
get_page_unless_zero() should be used instead.

Since get_page() is good in the page ref path without some guarantee,
it's not obvious to me why we need this guarantee in the pp ref path,
but I could be missing some subtlety. At any rate, if you prefer us
going down the road of reverting commit 2cc3aeb5eccc ("skbuff: Fix a
potential race while recycling page_pool packets"), I think that could
also fix the issue.

--=20
Thanks,
Mina