From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f43.google.com (mail-qv1-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F07202D97B5 for ; Wed, 6 May 2026 15:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778079701; cv=none; b=j78AnWuKmqp8Vclv0gehJPJQ2gf1lNkjcaJf4LeUpNJI2fiFD/DVhjm+CIIjd/Ere0qOUYlVnBtIZUbMAyYt+rRf4c87gDIqoKdWwVubbR19J27hNDv02CrAa4HUbnKujjpqpGUAAjF2vKwtpePBz6PNNYy2hw0MYeuCZQ4JX9M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778079701; c=relaxed/simple; bh=97D+2KHVfIQtZnF/BiA1aQSJIGdLjAtMFhlOAFZiK14=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gobDFP46ST7idTmay4v844zDnXFpwgOtTyjp+10KEjrRAAa/VBqWDCVw5LhR2GERK1eL+0BBFEptXD2bVrHGwX/90WBaup2Pm9OppZSetTU+cAfIiNndUGb7rDyBYybQSzCvRRV0wlZrENtaGZwGRDQlR1iG8UrKonM/qq87UhA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=m0i5uxDd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="m0i5uxDd" Received: by mail-qv1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-8b81586dff3so49424826d6.1 for ; Wed, 06 May 2026 08:01:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1778079699; x=1778684499; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gLAHKjPfNYNOn213evw/K14liXEUXmu1VrX7uQeQpoc=; b=m0i5uxDda8l70L5jkrqPDwCOOZK+zwoAQ0rP3P8kKvLsKB0bYlS6pfo9Ot7jLpCT/p MDuZzx/tvKy1KT/OuL0pOTT/ZX6mcsdiU78vvq53I0fjMtJrPGYI/aEXlg7AL8N1+nEU lWMRKmH4i4tafalq6HMjMaoRFyawHOuRgW1ntEDlTwIdcMS2QXg49IA9cQfvrtH1MGXP K/35nGtdB19D+eMeKi/Zxk2ZDkJE03J2dP0PStSNJDBl01cRDNnUBSTk7PnezQcs+m+x 8PRT7EbiqfOnP6mMfQ7Za29/XR7CITbyY1GfSsnkzpp8bRSdAGa6rjXj346+qLPwf86C jL8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1778079699; x=1778684499; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gLAHKjPfNYNOn213evw/K14liXEUXmu1VrX7uQeQpoc=; b=eL7GEuhIPrlE1iZyNHmXNcEnp+xP5X+v/lHJHH+WRI0I7I8BpYq86m8wQVM1j/3E0z tdqrf3BWSERP5R2pxMIgTNU8i+YozzXwM9RgQDhNC0PK1nigexu19ODdGVYBtlCmNgcu IR9ni7YKPoW+FDds7w0nl4Unoy8m/tm+zwYOMKu7MxKBffebK/lsDCC90mXzIqYey1v9 8SVeQzYKl1EX7O6kMm1RMG/+oBFuQR/42q7afDtFzu0yH7ra/4Jn/BWcAeX97IuybqKQ TxdoWiekiD+Ht3YfFjCyu1IgEJLtx7rpyNXdCJmldZfZ3iVJ3aeWgeYpwq2vtFtrbBVU QyCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy1SWlBCkykVWPFyoEwMyKh2N3qBP09jU0rMkVSa5wDXEaVvQ7x zq0Ds6/gJdzQA5aKbfI+oRsogRtLSH9OJ1evkBQ6nAC4XKs69enPyS4dhNBmpQ== X-Gm-Gg: AeBDieuDPprdNTyuyWL0riEHLTxfe+/Z4S16eY7EzKmJC9D+TnUNrRjeFADPYZfX2Wb zCee/1EXb70ybm44tnv/HGFZe3UoXgrk+q/LMH9rNJrN3GM7BW+xWkemY50wu2fNI5BjdC/M9VM eTteeKGkSnswEoP8a03mSkpbb2kdezMhvtJ7rB3yB7rsVotFzb32FpVVlvSF19c1uU3anR67l7N RKoy0L6jmJSSmlYLpApG6QYwolPqgEYmdzjPnhU2iof/gTvw94QyC5BcwszVeEPsCQl0l7WMDKv IoLF10LW0JvewXVTU7ZzF8J1qmd3CDSoigzbB9VquZaKzpfXqWE/IBpEaTC7Z6T5HVJk8De8bTI V8BecK7GAiYg3aj1D26QHy1U3EmwqtNbdXsBAXSMkhfNqsHYn8RSoJyCdK4N7RJaN53s5u9+bwi 9tZgm+d9HKtNZotNnhhhvnXMqx/KTlcZOfiIODx14tb/h7mY7ExQhw83pJrw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:458f:b0:8cf:d9a8:561b with SMTP id af79cd13be357-904d1081bacmr573794385a.0.1778079657410; Wed, 06 May 2026 08:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from devvm29614.prn0.facebook.com ([2a03:2880:f800:11::]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-8fc2c34a0d4sm1635460285a.25.2026.05.06.08.00.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 May 2026 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 08:00:53 -0700 From: Bobby Eshleman To: sashiko@lists.linux.dev Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: devmem: support TX over NETMEM_TX_NO_DMA devices Message-ID: References: <20260504-tcp-dm-netkit-v2-2-56d52ac72fd4@meta.com> <20260506002905.DF681C2BCB4@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 06:18:56PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 12:29:05AM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote: > > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider: > > - [High] Double lock lockdep splat and potential deadlock in netdev_nl_bind_tx_doit() > > - [High] Use-After-Free of dma_dev pointer in netdev_nl_bind_tx_doit() > > - [High] ABA vulnerability and pointer aliasing due to untracked vdev lifecycle > > -- > > > > commit fea3266a76d31b8278bf86dac679860b442a5bea > > Author: Bobby Eshleman > > > > net: devmem: support TX over NETMEM_TX_NO_DMA devices > > > > This patch enables devmem TX bindings on netkit virtual devices by routing > > the binding to the underlying DMA-capable physical device. It extends the > > skb validation and binding lookup to support the netkit architecture. > > [...] > > > > diff --git a/net/core/netdev-genl.c b/net/core/netdev-genl.c > > > index b8f6076d8007..0e296c3bb677 100644 > > > --- a/net/core/netdev-genl.c > > > +++ b/net/core/netdev-genl.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -1164,16 +1197,30 @@ int netdev_nl_bind_tx_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > > [ ... ] > > > + bind_dev = netdev_find_netmem_tx_dev(netdev); > > > + if (!bind_dev) { > > > + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, > > > + "No DMA-capable device found for netmem TX"); > > > + goto err_unlock_netdev; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (bind_dev != netdev) > > > + netdev_lock(bind_dev); > > > > Will acquiring netdev_lock() on bind_dev while already holding it on netdev > > trigger a lockdep warning? Since both are struct net_device instances, their > > locks belong to the exact same lockdep class. Without a mutex_lock_nested() > > annotation, acquiring them sequentially might trigger a possible circular > > locking dependency splat, and introduce a potential deadlock if locked in > > reverse order elsewhere. > > The tests passed with CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y and CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y. Since > they take the bind_dev != netdev path, I'm not not sure if this is > needed. Though I admit I don't fully understand mutex subclasses... Thinking about this more... I think the cleanest approach will be to just release netdev after looking up bind_dev and then netdev_lock(bind_dev) immediately after and hold until returning, which covers both cases bind_dev == netdev and bind_dev != netdev.