Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Tetsuo Handa]

A debug patch in linux-next-20260121
( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit?id=fc0f090e41e652d158f946c616cdd82baed3c8f4 )
has demonstrated that calling xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush()
when (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0 helps releasing "struct net_device" refcount.

  unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2
  ref_tracker: netdev@ffff88805d3c0628 has 1/1 users at
       xfrm_dev_state_add+0x6f4/0xc40 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c:316
       xfrm_state_construct net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:986 [inline]
       xfrm_add_sa+0x34ca/0x4230 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:1022
       xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x746/0xb20 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3507
       netlink_rcv_skb+0x232/0x4b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550
       xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x79/0x90 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3529
       netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline]
       netlink_unicast+0x80f/0x9b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344
       netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894
       sock_sendmsg_nosec+0x18f/0x1d0 net/socket.c:737
       __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:752 [inline]
       ____sys_sendmsg+0x589/0x8c0 net/socket.c:2610
       ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 net/socket.c:2664
       __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2696 [inline]
       __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2701 [inline]
       __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2699 [inline]
       __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1bd/0x2a0 net/socket.c:2699
       do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
       do_syscall_64+0xe2/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
  
  infiniband: balance for netdevsim0@ib_gid_table_entry is 0
  ***** Releasing 1 refcount on 0000000000000000
  ***** Refcount for netdevsim0 changed from 2 to 1

The bond_master_netdev_event(NETDEV_UNREGISTER) case is already calling
xfrm_dev_state_flush() without checking (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0.
Therefore, I assume that (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0 check in
xfrm_dev_down() is wrong, and I would like to propose

 static int xfrm_dev_down(struct net_device *dev)
 {
- 	if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) {
-		xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
-		xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
- 	}
+	xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
+	xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
 
 	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }

change as a fix for "unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2"
problem.



But I have a question regarding security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete().

xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_state_delete() which can make
xfrm_dev_state_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_policy_delete() which can make
xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op by returning an error value.

Since xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() are called by NETDEV_UNREGISTER
event (which is a signal for releasing all resources that prevent "struct net_device"
references from dropping), making xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op (by
allowing security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete() to return an error) is
a denial-of-service bug.

Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Steffen Klassert]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:24:22PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> A debug patch in linux-next-20260121
> ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit?id=fc0f090e41e652d158f946c616cdd82baed3c8f4 )
> has demonstrated that calling xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush()
> when (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0 helps releasing "struct net_device" refcount.
> 
>   unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2
>   ref_tracker: netdev@ffff88805d3c0628 has 1/1 users at
>        xfrm_dev_state_add+0x6f4/0xc40 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c:316
>        xfrm_state_construct net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:986 [inline]
>        xfrm_add_sa+0x34ca/0x4230 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:1022
>        xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x746/0xb20 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3507
>        netlink_rcv_skb+0x232/0x4b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550
>        xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x79/0x90 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3529
>        netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline]
>        netlink_unicast+0x80f/0x9b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344
>        netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894
>        sock_sendmsg_nosec+0x18f/0x1d0 net/socket.c:737
>        __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:752 [inline]
>        ____sys_sendmsg+0x589/0x8c0 net/socket.c:2610
>        ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 net/socket.c:2664
>        __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2696 [inline]
>        __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2701 [inline]
>        __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2699 [inline]
>        __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1bd/0x2a0 net/socket.c:2699
>        do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>        do_syscall_64+0xe2/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
>        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>   
>   infiniband: balance for netdevsim0@ib_gid_table_entry is 0
>   ***** Releasing 1 refcount on 0000000000000000
>   ***** Refcount for netdevsim0 changed from 2 to 1
> 
> The bond_master_netdev_event(NETDEV_UNREGISTER) case is already calling
> xfrm_dev_state_flush() without checking (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0.
> Therefore, I assume that (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0 check in
> xfrm_dev_down() is wrong, and I would like to propose
> 
>  static int xfrm_dev_down(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
> - 	if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) {
> -		xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> -		xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> - 	}
> +	xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> +	xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
>  
>  	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>  }

Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.

> 
> change as a fix for "unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2"
> problem.
> 
> 
> 
> But I have a question regarding security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete().
> 
> xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_state_delete() which can make
> xfrm_dev_state_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_policy_delete() which can make
> xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> 
> Since xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() are called by NETDEV_UNREGISTER
> event (which is a signal for releasing all resources that prevent "struct net_device"
> references from dropping), making xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op (by
> allowing security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete() to return an error) is
> a denial-of-service bug.

This means that the calling task doesn't have the permission to delete the
state, some LSM has a policy the does not grant this permission.

> 
> Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
> for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?

This might violate a LSM policy then.

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
> not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.

I was about to post the patch below, but you are suggesting that "do not allow calling
xfrm_dev_state_add()/xfrm_dev_policy_add() if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0" ?

[PATCH] xfrm: always flush state and policy upon NETDEV_DOWN/NETDEV_UNREGISTER events

syzbot is reporting that "struct xfrm_state" refcount is leaking.

  unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2
  ref_tracker: netdev@ffff888052f24618 has 1/1 users at
       __netdev_tracker_alloc include/linux/netdevice.h:4400 [inline]
       netdev_tracker_alloc include/linux/netdevice.h:4412 [inline]
       xfrm_dev_state_add+0x3a5/0x1080 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c:316
       xfrm_state_construct net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:986 [inline]
       xfrm_add_sa+0x34ff/0x5fa0 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:1022
       xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x58e/0xc00 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3507
       netlink_rcv_skb+0x158/0x420 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550
       xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x71/0x90 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3529
       netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline]
       netlink_unicast+0x5aa/0x870 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344
       netlink_sendmsg+0x8c8/0xdd0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894
       sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:727 [inline]
       __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:742 [inline]
       ____sys_sendmsg+0xa5d/0xc30 net/socket.c:2592
       ___sys_sendmsg+0x134/0x1d0 net/socket.c:2646
       __sys_sendmsg+0x16d/0x220 net/socket.c:2678
       do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
       do_syscall_64+0xcd/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

Since xfrm_dev_state_add() takes a reference to "struct net_device",
the corresponding NETDEV_UNREGISTER handler must release that reference.

Commit d77e38e612a0 ("xfrm: Add an IPsec hardware offloading API")
introduced xfrm_dev_state_add() which grabs a reference to
"struct net_device". That commit called xfrm_dev_state_add() from
xfrm_state_construct() and introduced the NETDEV_UNREGISTER case to
xfrm_dev_event(). But that commit implemented xfrm_dev_unregister() as
a no-op, and implemented xfrm_dev_down() to call xfrm_dev_state_flush()
only if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0. Maybe that commit expected
that NETDEV_DOWN event is fired before NETDEV_UNREGISTER event fires, and
also assumed that xfrm_dev_state_add() is called only if
(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0.

Commit ec30d78c14a8 ("xfrm: add xdst pcpu cache") added
xfrm_policy_cache_flush() call to xfrm_dev_unregister(), but
commit e4db5b61c572 ("xfrm: policy: remove pcpu policy cache") removed
xfrm_policy_cache_flush() call from xfrm_dev_unregister() and also
removed the NETDEV_UNREGISTER case from xfrm_dev_event() because
xfrm_dev_unregister() again became no-op.

Commit 03891f820c21 ("xfrm: handle NETDEV_UNREGISTER for xfrm device")
re-introduced the NETDEV_UNREGISTER case to xfrm_dev_event(), but that
commit for unknown reason chose to share xfrm_dev_down() between
the NETDEV_DOWN case and the NETDEV_UNREGISTER case. But since syzbot is
demonstrating that it is possible to call xfrm_dev_state_add() even if
(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0, we need to make sure that
netdev_put() from xfrm_dev_state_free() from xfrm_dev_state_flush() is
called upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event.

Assuming that it is correct behavior to call netdev_put() upon NETDEV_DOWN
event even if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0, this patch updates
xfrm_dev_down() rather than re-introducing xfrm_dev_unregister().

Reported-by: syzbot+881d65229ca4f9ae8c84@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=881d65229ca4f9ae8c84
Fixes: d77e38e612a0 ("xfrm: Add an IPsec hardware offloading API")
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
Since no reproducer is available for this problem, I can't ask syzbot to
test this change. But I confirmed using linux-next tree that calling
xfrm_dev_state_flush() upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event even if
(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0 solved this problem.

 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
index 52ae0e034d29..26e62b6a9db5 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
@@ -536,10 +536,8 @@ static int xfrm_api_check(struct net_device *dev)
 
 static int xfrm_dev_down(struct net_device *dev)
 {
-	if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) {
-		xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
-		xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
-	}
+	xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
+	xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
 
 	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
-- 
2.47.3

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Steffen Klassert]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 08:28:31PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
> > not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.
> 
> I was about to post the patch below, but you are suggesting that "do not allow calling
> xfrm_dev_state_add()/xfrm_dev_policy_add() if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0" ?

As said, I think this is the correct way to do it. But let's wait
on opinions from the hardware people.

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2026/01/22 20:32, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 08:28:31PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>>> Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
>>> not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.
>>
>> I was about to post the patch below, but you are suggesting that "do not allow calling
>> xfrm_dev_state_add()/xfrm_dev_policy_add() if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0" ?
> 
> As said, I think this is the correct way to do it. But let's wait
> on opinions from the hardware people.

OK. I guess something like below.

 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c |   10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
index 52ae0e034d29..19aa61609d24 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
@@ -292,6 +292,13 @@ int xfrm_dev_state_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_state *x,
 		dst_release(dst);
 	}
 
+	if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Device doesn't support offload");
+		xso->dev = NULL;
+		dev_put(dev);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add) {
 		xso->dev = NULL;
 		dev_put(dev);
@@ -367,7 +374,8 @@ int xfrm_dev_policy_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_policy *xp,
 	if (!dev)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add) {
+	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add ||
+	    !(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
 		xdo->dev = NULL;
 		dev_put(dev);
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Policy offload is not supported");



On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>> But I have a question regarding security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete().
>>
>> xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_state_delete() which can make
>> xfrm_dev_state_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
>> xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_policy_delete() which can make
>> xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
>>
>> Since xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() are called by NETDEV_UNREGISTER
>> event (which is a signal for releasing all resources that prevent "struct net_device"
>> references from dropping), making xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op (by
>> allowing security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete() to return an error) is
>> a denial-of-service bug.
> 
> This means that the calling task doesn't have the permission to delete the
> state, some LSM has a policy the does not grant this permission.

But NETDEV_UNREGISTER event can fire without explicit request from a user.
Roughly speaking, current behavior is that

  while (security_xfrm_state_delete() != 0) {
    schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(10 * HZ);
    pr_emerg("unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d\n",
             dev->name, netdev_refcnt_read(dev));
  }
  while (security_xfrm_policy_delete() != 0) {
    schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(10 * HZ);
    pr_emerg("unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d\n",
             dev->name, netdev_refcnt_read(dev));
  }

might be executed upon e.g. termination of a userspace process.

> 
>>
>> Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
>> for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?
> 
> This might violate a LSM policy then.

But LSM policy that results in system hung upon automatic cleanup logic is so stupid.
I want to kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check()
in order to eliminate possibility of system hung.

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:07:46PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2026/01/22 20:32, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 08:28:31PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >>> Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
> >>> not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.
> >>
> >> I was about to post the patch below, but you are suggesting that "do not allow calling
> >> xfrm_dev_state_add()/xfrm_dev_policy_add() if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0" ?
> > 
> > As said, I think this is the correct way to do it. But let's wait
> > on opinions from the hardware people.
> 
> OK. I guess something like below.
> 
>  net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c |   10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> index 52ae0e034d29..19aa61609d24 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> @@ -292,6 +292,13 @@ int xfrm_dev_state_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_state *x,
>  		dst_release(dst);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Device doesn't support offload");
> +		xso->dev = NULL;
> +		dev_put(dev);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

Steffen, Tetsuo

If by "HW people" you mean me, we always set NETIF_F_HW_ESP when adding
the .xfrm_dev_*_add() callbacks.

  1334 void mlx5e_ipsec_build_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
  1335 {
  1336         struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev = priv->mdev;
  1337         struct net_device *netdev = priv->netdev;
  1338
  1339         if (!mlx5_ipsec_device_caps(mdev))
  1340                 return;
  1341
  1342         mlx5_core_info(mdev,
  1343                        "mlx5e: IPSec ESP acceleration enabled\n");
  1344
  1345         netdev->xfrmdev_ops = &mlx5e_ipsec_xfrmdev_ops;
  1346         netdev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_ESP;
  1347         netdev->hw_enc_features |= NETIF_F_HW_ESP;

So we are left with two possibilities: either the device registered XFRM
ops without setting NETIF_F_HW_ESP, or netdev->features was modified
without clearing the xfrmdev_ops pointer.

Which device is triggering the syzcaller crash?

Thanks

> +
>  	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add) {
>  		xso->dev = NULL;
>  		dev_put(dev);
> @@ -367,7 +374,8 @@ int xfrm_dev_policy_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_policy *xp,
>  	if (!dev)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add) {
> +	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add ||
> +	    !(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
>  		xdo->dev = NULL;
>  		dev_put(dev);
>  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Policy offload is not supported");
> 
> 
> 
> On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >> But I have a question regarding security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete().
> >>
> >> xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_state_delete() which can make
> >> xfrm_dev_state_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> >> xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_policy_delete() which can make
> >> xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> >>
> >> Since xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() are called by NETDEV_UNREGISTER
> >> event (which is a signal for releasing all resources that prevent "struct net_device"
> >> references from dropping), making xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op (by
> >> allowing security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete() to return an error) is
> >> a denial-of-service bug.
> > 
> > This means that the calling task doesn't have the permission to delete the
> > state, some LSM has a policy the does not grant this permission.
> 
> But NETDEV_UNREGISTER event can fire without explicit request from a user.
> Roughly speaking, current behavior is that
> 
>   while (security_xfrm_state_delete() != 0) {
>     schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(10 * HZ);
>     pr_emerg("unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d\n",
>              dev->name, netdev_refcnt_read(dev));
>   }
>   while (security_xfrm_policy_delete() != 0) {
>     schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(10 * HZ);
>     pr_emerg("unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d\n",
>              dev->name, netdev_refcnt_read(dev));
>   }
> 
> might be executed upon e.g. termination of a userspace process.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
> >> for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?
> > 
> > This might violate a LSM policy then.
> 
> But LSM policy that results in system hung upon automatic cleanup logic is so stupid.
> I want to kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check()
> in order to eliminate possibility of system hung.
> 

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Sabrina Dubroca]

2026-01-22, 22:07:46 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2026/01/22 20:32, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 08:28:31PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2026/01/22 20:15, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >>> Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
> >>> not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.
> >>
> >> I was about to post the patch below, but you are suggesting that "do not allow calling
> >> xfrm_dev_state_add()/xfrm_dev_policy_add() if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0" ?
> > 
> > As said, I think this is the correct way to do it. But let's wait
> > on opinions from the hardware people.

But the current behavior ("ignore NETIF_F_HW_ESP and call
xdo_dev_state_add for new states anyway") has been established for
multiple years. Changing that now seems a bit risky.

> OK. I guess something like below.
> 
>  net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c |   10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> index 52ae0e034d29..19aa61609d24 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> @@ -292,6 +292,13 @@ int xfrm_dev_state_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_state *x,
>  		dst_release(dst);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Device doesn't support offload");
> +		xso->dev = NULL;
> +		dev_put(dev);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

I'm not sure we want to make state creation fail in this case...

> +
>  	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add) {

while it will succeed (just without offload) in that case.

>  		xso->dev = NULL;
>  		dev_put(dev);
> @@ -367,7 +374,8 @@ int xfrm_dev_policy_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_policy *xp,
>  	if (!dev)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add) {
> +	if (!dev->xfrmdev_ops || !dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add ||
> +	    !(dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)) {
>  		xdo->dev = NULL;
>  		dev_put(dev);
>  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Policy offload is not supported");

-- 
Sabrina

Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 7:00 AM Steffen Klassert
<steffen.klassert@secunet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:24:22PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

...

> > Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
> > for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?
>
> This might violate a LSM policy then.

Exactly.  SELinux is currently the only LSM that enforces any access
controls on the XFRM/IPsec code, but it does use both of these LSM
hooks to authorize deletion of SPD/SA objects.

-- 
paul-moore.com