From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Jiayuan Chen" <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: free page_pool frags via the page_pool path in bpf_xdp_shrink_data
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:37:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260816033752.794AE1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260816031245.268898-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] The netmem_is_pp() check fails on compound tail pages, leading to page_pool leaks and 'Bad page state' kernel panics.
- [Low] The multi-line comment introduced in bpf_xdp_shrink_data() does not follow the required BPF subsystem comment style.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH bpf] bpf: free page_pool frags via the page_pool path in bpf_xdp_shrink_data ---
commit 28e0b86b119236ed1263628b895946efb16e99cf
Author: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
bpf: free page_pool frags via the page_pool path in bpf_xdp_shrink_data
This commit fixes a page_pool leak reported by syzbot when generic XDP
programs shrink skbs into fragments. It inspects the page itself using
netmem_is_pp() rather than relying on the rxq memory model.
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=237bbeed8dfe0699b7f5
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 3423734124a5b..4536bd147c253 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -4293,6 +4294,14 @@ static bool bpf_xdp_shrink_data(struct xdp_buff *xdp, skb_frag_t *frag,
> if (mem_type == MEM_TYPE_XSK_BUFF_POOL) {
> netmem = 0;
> zc_frag = bpf_xdp_shrink_data_zc(xdp, shrink, tail, release);
> + } else if (netmem_is_pp(netmem)) {
[Severity: High]
Does this check handle compound tail pages correctly?
For fragments that span into tail pages of a compound page (such as those
from an order > 0 page_pool allocation), calling netmem_is_pp() directly on
the tail page might fail to find the page_pool signature. Tail pages store
compound_info in the memory location overlapping with pp_magic.
Would it be safer to check the compound head page here, perhaps using
netmem_compound_head(netmem) before checking the signature? Otherwise, tail
pages might still route to the wrong destructor and trigger the Bad page
state panic this patch aims to fix.
> + /* The rxq mem model does not always describe how a released
> + * frag must be freed: the generic-XDP and veth paths run the
[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does this follow the required BPF subsystem multi-line
comment style?
The style guide requires the opening /* to be on its own line:
/*
* The rxq mem model does not always describe...
> + * program on a shared rxq while the frag has been cow'd into
> + * page_pool memory. Trust the page itself and return a
> + * page_pool frag to its pool regardless of rxq->mem.type.
> + */
> + mem_type = MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL;
> }
>
> if (release) {
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260816031245.268898-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-16 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-16 3:12 [PATCH bpf] bpf: free page_pool frags via the page_pool path in bpf_xdp_shrink_data Jiayuan Chen
2026-08-16 3:37 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-16 5:10 ` Jiayuan Chen
2026-08-16 3:57 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 5:16 ` Jiayuan Chen
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=20260816033752.794AE1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jiayuan.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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