Re: [PATCH v1] tty: n_tty: use kvzalloc/kvfree for line discipline data

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 02:58:41PM +0800, Xin Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026, Greg KH wrote:
> > But that's not a problem with the tty layer, if something else happens
> > to "drain" the pool again you can not create a skb.  You are not
> > solving the root problem here.
> 
> You are right that this does not prevent every possible order-0
> exhaustion. However, the specific and reproducible trigger is
> n_tty_open() consuming order-0 pages via vzalloc() immediately before
> skb_clone() runs. Eliminating that unnecessary pressure removes the
> failure in practice, even if it does not make skb_clone() immune to
> all possible memory pressure.

Then you are going to play whack-a-mole on your very memory-constrained
system in order to work around the root problem here.  Please don't do
that, solve the real problem you are having.

> > But that's not really a change, when was vmalloc() first used?
> > As nothing has changed here, then why is this suddenly showing up now?
> 
> ldata was originally allocated with kzalloc() (introduced in commit
> 70ece7a73159, "TTY: n_tty, add ldisc data to n_tty", 2012).  Commit
> ebec3f8f5271 switched it to vmalloc()/vzalloc() in 2018 as a side
> effect of fixing an echo buffer race — the allocation change was
> incidental, not intentional.  The issue surfaces now because the BT
> enable-disable sanity test exercises a back-to-back open pattern that
> was not common before serdev-based UART transports became widespread.

So this is purely because you are stress-testing the BT stack now,
right?

> > Again, that sounds like a bluetooth issue, and why can't you just
> > properly handle the skb out of memory issue?
> 
> The skb_clone() failure is silent — it returns NULL and the code
> continues without error, leaving hdev->req_skb NULL.

Why not fix that?

> By the time
> the BT layer observes the problem (a -ETIMEDOUT 10 seconds later),
> it is several layers removed from the skb_clone() failure: the
> firmware has already replied successfully, hci_req_cmd_complete()
> has already run and found req_skb NULL, and the completion callback
> was never invoked.

Again, fix that.

> At that point the BT layer has no way to
> distinguish a memory failure from a genuine firmware timeout, let
> alone recover from it. 

But that's not a TTY layer issue, it's a BT issue.  Please fix that.

> And even if the NULL req_skb were detected
> and surfaced as an error immediately, there is nothing the BT layer
> could do to recover — it cannot reclaim memory or retry the
> allocation itself.

Nor should it, it should handle the error properly and recover
correctly.

>  The only option would be to wait for the memory
> to be reclaimed and retry the entire BT enable sequence from
> userspace, which is exactly the kind of fragile error handling we
> want to avoid.

No, you need to handle the error properly because it could happen at any
point in time.

> The tty change is simpler and correct: ldata was originally a
> kzalloc() allocation and there is no reason for it to use
> vmalloc-backed pages that interfere with unrelated allocations.

It is not "correct", but rather papering over the root problem.

Fix the bluetooth stack please.

thanks,

greg k-h