From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: zihanx@nebusec.ai
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
marc.dionne@auristor.com, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/1] rxrpc: fix encap_rcv skb accounting exhaustion
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 13:17:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260908121740.432088-1-horms@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a2bd6f3ed29919a7328363b548299ae583f052b0.1788539302.git.zihanx@nebusec.ai>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
Full review at: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/a2bd6f3ed29919a7328363b548299ae583f052b0.1788539302.git.zihanx@nebusec.ai?part=1
---
> diff --git a/net/rxrpc/io_thread.c b/net/rxrpc/io_thread.c
> --- a/net/rxrpc/io_thread.c
> +++ b/net/rxrpc/io_thread.c
> @@ -52,6 +50,19 @@ int rxrpc_encap_rcv(struct sock *udp_sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
> #endif
>
> + if (atomic_read(&udp_sk->sk_rmem_alloc) >= READ_ONCE(udp_sk->sk_rcvbuf) ||
> + !sk_rmem_schedule(udp_sk, skb, skb->truesize)) {
> + sk_drops_inc(udp_sk);
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + skb->dev = NULL;
> + skb_set_owner_r(skb, udp_sk);
> + skb_dst_force(skb);
> +
> + skb->mark = RXRPC_SKB_MARK_PACKET;
> + rxrpc_new_skb(skb, rxrpc_skb_new_encap_rcv);
> skb_queue_tail(rx_queue, skb);
> wake_up_process(io_thread);
> return 0;
[Severity: High]
This borrows UDP's rmem accounting without borrowing the lock that
protects it.
rxrpc_encap_rcv() is called from the UDP receive path in softirq
context with neither lock_sock(udp_sk) nor
udp_sk->sk_receive_queue.lock held, and nothing serialises two CPUs
delivering to the same local endpoint. Both new accounting calls in
this hunk perform an unsynchronised read-modify-write on
udp_sk->sk_forward_alloc: sk_rmem_schedule() reaches
__sk_mem_schedule()/sk_forward_alloc_add(), and skb_set_owner_r()
calls sk_mem_charge(), which is the same non-atomic
WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_forward_alloc, ...) update. The newly added
skb_orphan() in rxrpc_io_thread() closes the loop from the kthread
side: sock_rfree() -> sk_mem_uncharge() does the same non-atomic
update concurrently with softirq enqueues on other CPUs. Note that
only sk_rmem_alloc is atomic_t here; sk_forward_alloc is not, so the
atomic_read() guard at the top of the hunk does not make any of this
safe.
The normal UDP path does not have this problem because
__udp_enqueue_schedule_skb() performs the forward-alloc bookkeeping
and the skb_set_owner_r() under sk->sk_receive_queue.lock, and
udp_rmem_release() takes the same lock before reclaiming. The
consequence of losing that serialisation is not confined to this
socket: the drifted sk_forward_alloc is eventually handed to
__sk_mem_reduce_allocated(), which subtracts it from the protocol-wide
udp_prot memory_allocated counter, so a flood of RxRPC-shaped packets
can skew global UDP memory accounting for every UDP socket on the
machine. That is a worse failure mode than the unbounded rx_queue this
patch is trying to fix.
How do you want to serialise this? Options I can see are enqueueing
via the existing UDP receive-queue locking rather than open-coding the
charge, or holding local->rx_queue.lock across both the charge in
rxrpc_encap_rcv() and the skb_orphan() in rxrpc_io_thread() so the
charge and uncharge sides are mutually exclusive. Please say which you
intend, and make sure the answer covers the I/O-thread uncharge path
too, not just the two enqueue-side calls.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-08 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-05 8:17 [PATCH net v3 0/1] " Zihan Xi
2026-09-05 8:17 ` [PATCH net v3 1/1] " Zihan Xi
2026-09-08 12:17 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2026-09-09 4:58 ` zihan xi
2026-09-08 8:25 ` David Howells
2026-09-08 9:12 ` zihan xi
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=20260908121740.432088-1-horms@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.dionne@auristor.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zihanx@nebusec.ai \
/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®