From: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org
To: zack.gomez@gmail.com
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, leitao@debian.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netpoll: bound the deferred transmit queue
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:12:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <178961837641.22033.14382026890378144120@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914041221.1028092-1-zack.gomez@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issue(s) to consider:
Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 1
- [Medium] In stacked netpoll configurations the new tail drop in
`__netpoll_send_skb()` (net/core/netpoll.c:325-327) is completely…
- [Low] The new cap in `__netpoll_send_skb()` reads `npinfo->txq.qlen`
via `skb_queue_len()` (a plain, unannotated load,…
--
netpoll: bound the deferred transmit queue
Adds a NETPOLL_TXQ_MAX cap of 1024 skbs on npinfo->txq and makes
__netpoll_send_skb() free the new skb and return NET_XMIT_DROP once the
queue is at that length, instead of letting the deferred queue grow until
the machine runs out of memory.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20061026225645.482978803@osdl.org/
> diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> index fe1e0cda5d6bf..8fd640955e463 100644
> --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -314,6 +322,10 @@ static netdev_tx_t __netpoll_send_skb(struct netpoll *np, struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
>
> if (!dev_xmit_complete(status)) {
> + if (skb_queue_len(&npinfo->txq) >= NETPOLL_TXQ_MAX) {
> + dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
> + goto out;
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
The commit message says:
"netconsole already counts NET_XMIT_DROP in its per-target
xmit_drop_count, so the loss is visible in configfs."
Does that hold when the netconsole target sits on a stacked device such as
a bond, bridge, team, VLAN or macvlan?
In that case the queue that fills and gets capped is the lower device's
npinfo->txq, reached through a nested netpoll_send_skb(). For a bond:
net/core/netpoll.c:__netpoll_send_skb() /* np->dev == bond0 */
netpoll_start_xmit()
bond_start_xmit()
bond_dev_queue_xmit()
if (unlikely(netpoll_tx_running(bond->dev)))
return bond_netpoll_send_skb(...);
netpoll_send_skb(slave->np)
__netpoll_send_skb() /* slave's txq hits the cap */
ret = NET_XMIT_DROP;
The nested NET_XMIT_DROP is then propagated back as status in the outer
__netpoll_send_skb(), and NET_XMIT_DROP is 1:
include/linux/netdevice.h:dev_xmit_complete() {
if (likely(rc < NET_XMIT_MASK))
return true;
}
so the outer frame treats the drop as a completed transmit, skips the
!dev_xmit_complete(status) block, and falls through to:
ret = NETDEV_TX_OK;
out:
rcu_read_unlock();
return ret;
drivers/net/netconsole.c:send_udp() only counts the drop when
result == NET_XMIT_DROP reaches it, so xmit_drop_count (configfs
transmit_errors) stays at zero for these setups.
The bridge and team wrappers are worse in this respect, since the return
value is dropped on the floor entirely:
net/bridge/br_private.h:
static inline void br_netpoll_send_skb(const struct net_bridge_port *p,
struct sk_buff *skb)
{
netpoll_send_skb(p->np, skb);
}
Could either the commit message be narrowed to a target bound directly to a
physical device, or the drop path get its own accounting (for example
dev_core_stats_tx_dropped_inc()) so the loss is observable in the stacked
cases too?
[Severity: Low]
Is the cap intended to be a hard bound? The length is read outside
npinfo->txq.lock, while the enqueue takes that lock on its own:
include/linux/skbuff.h:skb_queue_len() {
return list_->qlen;
}
net/core/skbuff.c:skb_queue_tail() {
spin_lock_irqsave(&list->lock, flags);
__skb_queue_tail(list, newsk);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&list->lock, flags);
}
Since check and enqueue are not one critical section, can N CPUs each
observe qlen == 1023 and all enqueue, leaving the queue at 1023 + N?
The read is also a plain load racing with skb_queue_tail() from other
producers and with skb_dequeue()/skb_queue_head() in queue_process(),
which looks KCSAN-reportable. Would skb_queue_len_lockless(), or doing the
test and the __skb_queue_tail() under a single
spin_lock_irqsave(&npinfo->txq.lock, flags), be preferable here?
The existing skb_queue_len(&npinfo->txq) == 0 test earlier in
__netpoll_send_skb() has the same annotation question, so that part is
pre-existing and not introduced by this patch; this patch adds a second
instance and bases the memory bound on it.
> skb_queue_tail(&npinfo->txq, skb);
> schedule_delayed_work(&npinfo->tx_work,0);
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260914041221.1028092-1-zack.gomez%40gmail.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 4:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 4:12 Zack Gomez
2026-09-14 8:47 ` Breno Leitao
2026-09-15 16:40 ` Zack Gomez
2026-09-15 16:45 ` Zack Gomez
2026-09-16 10:01 ` Breno Leitao
2026-09-17 4:12 ` netdev-bot+sashiko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=178961837641.22033.14382026890378144120@kernel.org \
--to=netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=zack.gomez@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®