Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-162505-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:00:22 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Fix one page_pool page leak from
 skb_frag_unref
Message-ID: <20240429080022.214a9df9@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHS8izNs-LV=6FE39sjF3V7qVfveOsOAOJ_X62TSzWpvamsS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CAHS8izNs-LV=6FE39sjF3V7qVfveOsOAOJ_X62TSzWpvamsS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:24:09 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 4:09=E2=80=AFPM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> =
wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:20:59 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote: =20
> > > -       if (recycle && napi_pp_get_page(page))
> > > +       if (napi_pp_get_page(page)) =20
> >
> > 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. =20
>=20
> 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.

Whoever gave us the pointer to operate on has a reference, so the page
can't disappear. get_page() is safe. The problem with pp is that we
don't know whether the caller has a pp ref or a page ref. IOW the pp
ref may not be owned by whoever called us.

I guess the situation may actually be worse and we can only pp-ref a
page if both "source" and "destination" skb has pp_recycle =3D 1 :S

> 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.