* [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback
@ 2026-10-09 9:19 Zqiang
2026-10-09 21:26 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Zqiang @ 2026-10-09 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, horms, kuniyu
Cc: qiang.zhang, netdev, linux-kernel
For builts with CONFIG_NET_DEV_REFCNT_TRACKER=y kernels, netdev_put()
records the caller's stack trace via ref_tracker_free() for debugging
reference leaks. however, the netdev_put() is within pneigh_destroy()
RCU callback, this recorded stack is uninformative, it does not reveal
which code path initiated the deletion.
This commit therefore move netdev_put() from the RCU callback into the
caller's process context, and replace call_rcu() with kfree_rcu().
Fixes: d539d8fbd8fc ("neighbour: Free pneigh_entry after RCU grace period.")
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
---
net/core/neighbour.c | 14 ++++----------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
index 6ed8eb075146..4263689fc415 100644
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
@@ -818,14 +818,6 @@ int pneigh_create(struct neigh_table *tbl,
return err;
}
-static void pneigh_destroy(struct rcu_head *rcu)
-{
- struct pneigh_entry *n = container_of(rcu, struct pneigh_entry, rcu);
-
- netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
- kfree(n);
-}
-
int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
struct net_device *dev)
{
@@ -849,7 +841,8 @@ int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
if (tbl->pdestructor)
tbl->pdestructor(n);
- call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
+ netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
+ kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
return 0;
}
}
@@ -891,7 +884,8 @@ static void pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev,
if (tbl->pdestructor)
tbl->pdestructor(n);
- call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
+ netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
+ kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
}
}
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback
2026-10-09 9:19 [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback Zqiang
@ 2026-10-09 21:26 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-11-07 11:47 ` Zqiang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima @ 2026-10-09 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zqiang; +Cc: davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, horms, netdev, linux-kernel
On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 2:19 AM Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> For builts with CONFIG_NET_DEV_REFCNT_TRACKER=y kernels, netdev_put()
> records the caller's stack trace via ref_tracker_free() for debugging
> reference leaks. however, the netdev_put() is within pneigh_destroy()
> RCU callback, this recorded stack is uninformative, it does not reveal
> which code path initiated the deletion.
Have you seen pneigh double-free ? What motivates this change ?
>
> This commit therefore move netdev_put() from the RCU callback into the
> caller's process context, and replace call_rcu() with kfree_rcu().
>
> Fixes: d539d8fbd8fc ("neighbour: Free pneigh_entry after RCU grace period.")
Please elaborate why your change is safe in the commit message
and remove the tag.
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
nit: full name
> ---
> net/core/neighbour.c | 14 ++++----------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> index 6ed8eb075146..4263689fc415 100644
> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> @@ -818,14 +818,6 @@ int pneigh_create(struct neigh_table *tbl,
> return err;
> }
>
> -static void pneigh_destroy(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> -{
> - struct pneigh_entry *n = container_of(rcu, struct pneigh_entry, rcu);
> -
> - netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> - kfree(n);
> -}
> -
> int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> struct net_device *dev)
> {
> @@ -849,7 +841,8 @@ int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> if (tbl->pdestructor)
> tbl->pdestructor(n);
>
> - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> return 0;
> }
> }
> @@ -891,7 +884,8 @@ static void pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev,
> if (tbl->pdestructor)
> tbl->pdestructor(n);
>
> - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback
2026-10-09 21:26 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
@ 2026-11-07 11:47 ` Zqiang
2026-11-07 19:34 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Zqiang @ 2026-11-07 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima
Cc: davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, horms, netdev, linux-kernel
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 2:19 AM Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> >
> > For builts with CONFIG_NET_DEV_REFCNT_TRACKER=y kernels, netdev_put()
> > records the caller's stack trace via ref_tracker_free() for debugging
> > reference leaks. however, the netdev_put() is within pneigh_destroy()
> > RCU callback, this recorded stack is uninformative, it does not reveal
> > which code path initiated the deletion.
> >
> Have you seen pneigh double-free ? What motivates this change ?
Firstly, Apologies for delayed reply.
Actually, I didn't see any double-free happening, just wanted it to
record a meaningful callstack which on release path. After all, if double-free
really occurs, the callstack of the RCU callback execution path will not be helpful.
>
> >
> > This commit therefore move netdev_put() from the RCU callback into the
> > caller's process context, and replace call_rcu() with kfree_rcu().
> >
> > Fixes: d539d8fbd8fc ("neighbour: Free pneigh_entry after RCU grace period.")
> >
> Please elaborate why your change is safe in the commit message
> and remove the tag.
Does it refer to using kfree_rcu instead of call_rcu ensures safely ?
Thanks
Zqiang
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> >
> nit: full name
>
> >
> > ---
> > net/core/neighbour.c | 14 ++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > index 6ed8eb075146..4263689fc415 100644
> > --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> > +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > @@ -818,14 +818,6 @@ int pneigh_create(struct neigh_table *tbl,
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static void pneigh_destroy(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > -{
> > - struct pneigh_entry *n = container_of(rcu, struct pneigh_entry, rcu);
> > -
> > - netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > - kfree(n);
> > -}
> > -
> > int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > struct net_device *dev)
> > {
> > @@ -849,7 +841,8 @@ int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> >
> > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -891,7 +884,8 @@ static void pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev,
> > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> >
> > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback
2026-11-07 11:47 ` Zqiang
@ 2026-11-07 19:34 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-11-07 19:47 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima @ 2026-11-07 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zqiang; +Cc: davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, horms, netdev, linux-kernel
On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 11:47:45 +0000, Zqiang wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 2:19 AM Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For builts with CONFIG_NET_DEV_REFCNT_TRACKER=y kernels, netdev_put()
> > > records the caller's stack trace via ref_tracker_free() for debugging
> > > reference leaks. however, the netdev_put() is within pneigh_destroy()
> > > RCU callback, this recorded stack is uninformative, it does not reveal
> > > which code path initiated the deletion.
> > >
> > Have you seen pneigh double-free ? What motivates this change ?
>
> Firstly, Apologies for delayed reply.
>
>
>
> Actually, I didn't see any double-free happening, just wanted it to
> record a meaningful callstack which on release path. After all, if double-free
> really occurs, the callstack of the RCU callback execution path will not be helpful.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > This commit therefore move netdev_put() from the RCU callback into the
> > > caller's process context, and replace call_rcu() with kfree_rcu().
> > >
> > > Fixes: d539d8fbd8fc ("neighbour: Free pneigh_entry after RCU grace period.")
> > >
> > Please elaborate why your change is safe in the commit message
> > and remove the tag.
>
> Does it refer to using kfree_rcu instead of call_rcu ensures safely ?
I mean why dropping netdev refcnt waiting RCU gp is safe.
>
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> > >
> > nit: full name
> >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > net/core/neighbour.c | 14 ++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > index 6ed8eb075146..4263689fc415 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > @@ -818,14 +818,6 @@ int pneigh_create(struct neigh_table *tbl,
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void pneigh_destroy(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > > -{
> > > - struct pneigh_entry *n = container_of(rcu, struct pneigh_entry, rcu);
> > > -
> > > - netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > - kfree(n);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > > struct net_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > @@ -849,7 +841,8 @@ int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> > >
> > > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > @@ -891,7 +884,8 @@ static void pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev,
> > > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> > >
> > > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback
2026-11-07 19:34 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
@ 2026-11-07 19:47 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima @ 2026-11-07 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zqiang; +Cc: davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, horms, netdev, linux-kernel
On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 19:34:07 +0000, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 11:47:45 +0000, Zqiang wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 2:19 AM Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For builts with CONFIG_NET_DEV_REFCNT_TRACKER=y kernels, netdev_put()
> > > > records the caller's stack trace via ref_tracker_free() for debugging
> > > > reference leaks. however, the netdev_put() is within pneigh_destroy()
> > > > RCU callback, this recorded stack is uninformative, it does not reveal
> > > > which code path initiated the deletion.
> > > >
> > > Have you seen pneigh double-free ? What motivates this change ?
> >
> > Firstly, Apologies for delayed reply.
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, I didn't see any double-free happening, just wanted it to
> > record a meaningful callstack which on release path. After all, if double-free
> > really occurs, the callstack of the RCU callback execution path will not be helpful.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This commit therefore move netdev_put() from the RCU callback into the
> > > > caller's process context, and replace call_rcu() with kfree_rcu().
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: d539d8fbd8fc ("neighbour: Free pneigh_entry after RCU grace period.")
> > > >
> > > Please elaborate why your change is safe in the commit message
> > > and remove the tag.
> >
> > Does it refer to using kfree_rcu instead of call_rcu ensures safely ?
>
> I mean why dropping netdev refcnt waiting RCU gp is safe.
*without waiting
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Zqiang
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> > > >
> > > nit: full name
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > net/core/neighbour.c | 14 ++++----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > > index 6ed8eb075146..4263689fc415 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> > > > @@ -818,14 +818,6 @@ int pneigh_create(struct neigh_table *tbl,
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static void pneigh_destroy(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > > > -{
> > > > - struct pneigh_entry *n = container_of(rcu, struct pneigh_entry, rcu);
> > > > -
> > > > - netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > > - kfree(n);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > > > struct net_device *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -849,7 +841,8 @@ int pneigh_delete(struct neigh_table *tbl, const void *pkey,
> > > > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > > > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> > > >
> > > > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > > > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -891,7 +884,8 @@ static void pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev,
> > > > if (tbl->pdestructor)
> > > > tbl->pdestructor(n);
> > > >
> > > > - call_rcu(&n->rcu, pneigh_destroy);
> > > > + netdev_put(n->dev, &n->dev_tracker);
> > > > + kfree_rcu(n, rcu);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.17.1
> > > >
> > >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-11-07 19:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-10-09 9:19 [PATCH] neighbour: Move the netdev_put() out of RCU callback Zqiang
2026-10-09 21:26 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-11-07 11:47 ` Zqiang
2026-11-07 19:34 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-11-07 19:47 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
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®