* Re: [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails
2026-11-03 10:05 [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails Wentao Liang
@ 2026-11-03 10:09 ` netdev-bot+sinfo
2026-11-03 10:25 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-11-07 11:31 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: netdev-bot+sinfo @ 2026-11-03 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wentao Liang
Cc: Sunil Goutham, Geetha sowjanya, Ratheesh Kannoth,
Subbaraya Sundeep, Bharat Bhushan, Andrew Lunn, David S. Miller,
Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, netdev, linux-kernel,
stable
Hi!
This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
commit messages seem to be missing some information:
- How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
analysis tool scan.
- Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
(e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.
- What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.
Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.
The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
that is the case please reply and explain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails
2026-11-03 10:05 [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails Wentao Liang
2026-11-03 10:09 ` netdev-bot+sinfo
@ 2026-11-03 10:25 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-11-07 11:31 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2026-11-03 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wentao Liang
Cc: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Andrew Lunn, Paolo Abeni,
linux-kernel, Jakub Kicinski, Bharat Bhushan, Ratheesh Kannoth,
Subbaraya Sundeep, netdev, stable, Geetha sowjanya,
Sunil Goutham
On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:05:36 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> otx2_tc_parse_actions() increments flow_cfg->mark_flows when it finds a
> FLOW_ACTION_MARK action. The reference is meant to be dropped again by
> otx2_tc_del_flow() when the flow is removed, so a flow that fails to
> install after its actions were parsed leaks it: the checks for the MCAM
> entry, the insertion into the flow list, the mailbox allocation and the
> mailbox reply all free the new flow node without touching the counter.
> The same happens when parsing the actions itself fails after the mark
> action was processed.
>
> Release the reference on the error paths of otx2_tc_add_flow(), using
> the match id of the parsed request to tell whether it was taken.
>
> Fixes: 6a57f091622a ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for offload tc with skbedit mark action")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.
2. You use multiple identities with this email address, thus I doubt that we
speak with an actual person.
3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?
4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.
5. Finally, the same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.
More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.
This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down. Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.
Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document the issue discovery method and what was
or was not tested.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails
2026-11-03 10:05 [PATCH] net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails Wentao Liang
2026-11-03 10:09 ` netdev-bot+sinfo
2026-11-03 10:25 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2026-11-07 11:31 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: netdev-bot+sashiko @ 2026-11-07 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: vulab
Cc: sgoutham, gakula, rkannoth, sbhatta, bbhushan2, andrew+netdev,
davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, netdev, linux-kernel, stable
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issue(s) to consider.
Critical: 0 · High: 1 (1) · Medium: 1 (1) · Low: 0
If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each
issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork
know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply
(one such reply per series is enough).
- [High] The new helper otx2_tc_put_mark_flow() (otx2_tc.c:1240-1245)
uses `req->match_id != 0` to decide whether a mark_flows reference was…
- [Medium] net: octeontx2-pf: otx2_tc_put_mark_flow() leaves TC mark flag
enabled
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but it makes the
counter the patch balances meaningless.
- [Medium] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the error
paths of otx2_tc_add_flow() that the patch edits fail to undo other…
--
net: octeontx2-pf: drop the TC mark reference when adding a flow fails
This patch adds otx2_tc_put_mark_flow() and calls it on the error paths
of otx2_tc_add_flow(). When installing a flow fails, it drops the
flow_cfg->mark_flows reference that otx2_tc_parse_actions() took for a
FLOW_ACTION_MARK action. The match_id of the parsed request is used to
decide whether a reference was taken.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c
> index dee38d5c7f65b..c3726d9f455a2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c
> @@ -1237,6 +1237,13 @@ static int otx2_tc_del_flow(struct otx2_nic *nic,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void otx2_tc_put_mark_flow(struct otx2_nic *nic,
> + struct npc_install_flow_req *req)
> +{
> + if (req->match_id)
> + refcount_dec(&nic->flow_cfg->mark_flows);
[Severity: Medium]
The helper puts back the mark_flows reference, but it leaves the other
half of what otx2_tc_parse_actions() did in place. The FLOW_ACTION_MARK
case does both of these before the flow has been installed:
nic->flags |= OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED;
refcount_inc(&nic->flow_cfg->mark_flows);
Suppose the first rule with an skbedit mark action fails to install.
A later action in otx2_tc_parse_actions() could be rejected, or one of
cn20k_tc_alloc_entry(), otx2_tc_update_mcam_table(),
otx2_mbox_alloc_msg_npc_install_flow() or otx2_sync_mbox_msg() could
fail. In each case mark_flows returns to its initial value of 1, but
OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED stays set in nic->flags.
With no mark rule installed, otx2_rcv_pkt_handler() still does this for
every received packet:
if (pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED)
skb->mark = parse->match_id;
So a failed add still changes the RX datapath. The flag is only cleared
again if a marked flow is later deleted through otx2_tc_del_flow().
If the intent of this patch is to undo the side effects of a failed
add, should the flag also be cleared here once no mark rules remain?
Clearing it unconditionally would be wrong when another mark rule is
already installed, so it would need the same "last reference" test that
otx2_tc_del_flow() is meant to use. Alternatively, would it be simpler
to set the flag only after the flow has been installed successfully?
Then the error paths would have nothing to undo.
[Severity: High]
Does a non-zero match_id reliably show that the reference was taken? The
code in otx2_tc_parse_actions() that takes the reference doesn't follow
the same rule:
case FLOW_ACTION_MARK:
if (act->mark & ~OTX2_RX_MATCH_ID_MASK) {
...
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
mark = act->mark;
req->match_id = mark & OTX2_RX_MATCH_ID_MASK;
req->op = NIX_RX_ACTION_DEFAULT;
nic->flags |= OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED;
refcount_inc(&nic->flow_cfg->mark_flows);
break;
This check accepts a mark of 0, so "action skbedit mark 0" takes a
reference and leaves match_id at 0. act_skbedit sets SKBEDIT_F_MARK
whenever TCA_SKBEDIT_MARK is present. tcf_skbedit_offload_act_setup()
then passes the value through unchanged as FLOW_ACTION_MARK, so mark 0
does reach the driver.
Nothing stops a rule from having several MARK actions either. Each one
increments mark_flows and overwrites match_id. The helper drops at most
one reference, or none if the last mark is 0.
Take a rule like this one:
flower skip_sw ... action skbedit mark 0 action skbedit ptype host
It fails in otx2_tc_prepare_flow() on the second action, and the
reference taken for the first action still leaks. The
cn20k_tc_alloc_entry() failure path and the free_leaf path behave the
same way.
The commit message says:
Release the reference on the error paths of otx2_tc_add_flow(), using
the match id of the parsed request to tell whether it was taken.
Doesn't this leave the leak reachable in these cases?
otx2_tc_del_flow() uses the same match_id test. A mark 0 rule that
installs successfully would also leak its reference when it is deleted.
Would it be more robust to record the acquisition per node, for example
with a bool or a count set next to refcount_inc()? Another option is to
reject duplicate MARK actions. Either way, the decision would no longer
depend on match_id.
> +}
> +
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue and was not introduced by this patch. It
does affect what the counter balanced here actually does.
otx2_mcam_flow_init() starts the counter at 1:
refcount_set(&flow_cfg->mark_flows, 1);
otx2_tc_del_flow() is the only code that reads it:
/* Disable TC MARK flag if they are no rules with skbedit mark action */
if (flow_node->req.match_id)
if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&flow_cfg->mark_flows))
nic->flags &= ~OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED;
Starting from 1, refcount_dec_and_test() never reaches 0 when references
are balanced, so the negated test is always true. Doesn't that clear
OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED every time a marked flow is deleted, even while
other mark rules are still installed?
otx2_rcv_pkt_handler() only copies the hardware match_id into skb->mark
while the flag is set:
if (pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_TC_MARK_ENABLED)
skb->mark = parse->match_id;
Suppose two skip_sw flower rules are installed with "skbedit mark 5" and
"skbedit mark 6", and the second one is deleted. Packets matching the
first rule would then stop getting skb->mark, even though the hardware
still writes match_id 5 into the CQE.
The same-cookie replace path in otx2_tc_add_flow() can hit this with a
single rule. otx2_tc_prepare_flow() sets the flag for the new rule, and
then otx2_tc_del_flow() on the old node clears it.
Since this test is the only reader of mark_flows, does the reference
balancing in this patch change any driver behaviour while this problem
remains?
[ ... ]
> @@ -1287,6 +1295,7 @@ static int otx2_tc_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *nic,
> if (rc) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> "MCAM rule allocation failed");
> + otx2_tc_put_mark_flow(nic, &dummy);
> kfree_rcu(new_node, rcu);
> return rc;
> }
[Severity: Medium]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this path leak other
resources that otx2_tc_prepare_flow() acquired?
cn20k allows police actions. otx2_tc_act_set_police() allocates a leaf
profile, maps the RQ policer and sets a bit in nic->rq_bmap:
rc = otx2_tc_act_set_hw_police(nic, node);
if (!rc)
set_bit(rq_idx, &nic->rq_bmap);
If cn20k_tc_alloc_entry() then fails, new_node is freed directly here and
the police cleanup in free_leaf is skipped. The leaf profile, the RQ
policer mapping and the rq_bmap bit all look like they leak.
The multicast group that otx2_tc_update_mcast() creates and stores in
new_node->mcast_grp_idx is also never destroyed, either here or in the
free_leaf path. otx2_tc_del_flow() sends NIX_MCAST_GRP_DESTROY for it, but
the error paths in otx2_tc_add_flow() don't.
In otx2_tc_parse_actions(), the multicast group is also created before
the nr_police check and before otx2_tc_act_set_police() runs:
if (mcast) {
err = otx2_tc_update_mcast(nic, req, extack, node,
&dummy_grp_update_req,
num_intf);
if (err)
return err;
}
if (nr_police > 1) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
"rate limit police offload requires a single action");
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
If either of those fails, the otx2_tc_prepare_flow() error path frees
new_node and the AF multicast group leaks.
Repeated failures could use up rq_bmap ("Police action rules exceeded"),
as well as AF multicast groups and leaf profiles.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20261103100536.1310108-1-vulab%40iscas.ac.cn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread