From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: qingfang.deng@linux.dev
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
kees@kernel.org, ericwouds@gmail.com, manizada@pm.me,
nbd@nbd.name, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, norbert@doyensec.com,
gnault@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] pppoe: pass bound packets directly to generic PPP
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 18:28:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260806012820.1905519-2-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804074452.75548-1-qingfang.deng@linux.dev>
This is (mostly) an AI-generated review of your patch.
One non-AI question - presumably you're doing this to improve performance?
Could you add some numbers to the cover letter?
---
pppoe: pass bound packets directly to generic PPP
This drops __sk_receive_skb() for PPPOX_BOUND PPPoE sockets and hands
session frames straight to ppp_input() from pppoe_rcv(), relying on the
RCU-deferred channel free added by ec4215683e47. It also adds a
synchronize_net() in pppoe_connect() after the old session is unhashed,
before po->chan is cleared and reused.
No Link: tags are present in the commit header.
A few questions below.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c b/drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c
> index 6874a1a8edaf1..0624116241823 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c
> @@ -345,10 +345,10 @@ static struct notifier_block pppoe_notifier = {
>
> /************************************************************************
> *
> - * Do the real work of receiving a PPPoE Session frame.
> + * Backlog receive a PPPoE Session frame and deliver to userspace.
> *
> ***********************************************************************/
> -static int pppoe_rcv_core(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +static int pppoe_backlog_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> struct pppox_sock *po = pppox_sk(sk);
[Severity: Low]
Is the new banner comment accurate? The function body still delivers to
the generic PPP layer, not to userspace:
drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c:pppoe_backlog_rcv() {
if (sk->sk_state & PPPOX_BOUND) {
ppp_input(&po->chan, skb);
} else {
if (sock_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb))
goto abort_kfree;
}
}
That branch still looks reachable: pppoe_rcv() only takes the new direct
path when it observes PPPOX_BOUND, and a frame observed while !BOUND is put
on the socket backlog by __sk_receive_skb() and only evaluated at
release_sock() time. By then pppox_ioctl(PPPIOCGCHAN) may already have run
sk->sk_state |= PPPOX_BOUND under lock_sock().
Could the comment mention that the bound case still goes to ppp_input(), so
that a later reader does not remove the branch on the strength of the banner
text?
[ ... ]
> @@ -420,6 +420,10 @@ static int pppoe_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> if (!po)
> goto drop;
>
> + if (likely(po->sk.sk_state & PPPOX_BOUND)) {
> + ppp_input(&po->chan, skb);
> + return NET_RX_SUCCESS;
> + }
> return __sk_receive_skb(&po->sk, skb, 0, 1, false);
[Severity: Medium]
Does this skip socket filters and the skb->dev clearing that
__sk_receive_skb() used to perform for bound sessions?
net/core/sock.c:__sk_receive_skb() {
reason = sk_filter_trim_cap(sk, skb, trim_cap);
if (reason)
goto discard_and_relse;
skb->dev = NULL;
...
}
Two things in sk_filter_trim_cap() look relevant here. A filter attached
with SO_ATTACH_FILTER/SO_ATTACH_BPF is now silently ignored for all bound
session traffic; do_sock_setsockopt() routes SOL_SOCKET options to
sock_setsockopt() for PF_PPPOX since pppoe does not set SOCK_CUSTOM_SOCKOPT,
so sk->sk_filter can be non-NULL. The pfmemalloc guard is also bypassed:
net/core/filter.c:sk_filter_trim_cap() {
if (skb_pfmemalloc(skb) && !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_MEMALLOC)) {
NET_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), LINUX_MIB_PFMEMALLOCDROP);
return SKB_DROP_REASON_PFMEMALLOC;
}
...
}
The dropped skb->dev = NULL also matters for the frames ppp_input() parks on
pch->file.rq (proto >= 0xc000, PPP_CCPFRAG, or pch->ppp == NULL) -- those can
now sit queued indefinitely holding a non-refcounted net_device pointer. Is
that intentional? The cgroup-BPF and LSM parts of sk_filter_trim_cap() do
appear to be no-ops for PF_PPPOX, so those are not a concern, and the
sk_rcvqueues_full() check is not meaningful for the bound path.
Note the PPPOX_BOUND branch in pppoe_backlog_rcv() still runs under the old
contract, so the same class of frame is handled two different ways depending
on timing. Could the changelog say something about the filtering and
skb->dev behaviour change?
[Severity: Low]
Should this read be annotated? po->sk.sk_state is loaded here from softirq
with no lock held, while every writer stores it with a plain access under
lock_sock():
drivers/net/ppp/pppox.c:pppox_unbind_sock() sk->sk_state = PPPOX_DEAD;
drivers/net/ppp/pppox.c:pppox_ioctl() sk->sk_state |= PPPOX_BOUND;
drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c:pppoe_connect() sk->sk_state = PPPOX_CONNECTED;
Before the patch the test happened inside bh_lock_sock() in
__sk_receive_skb(), so it was serialized against those writers. Would
KCSAN report this now, and would READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() be appropriate?
There is also a bare control dependency: pppoe_connect() fills in
po->chan.{hdrlen,mtu,private,ops}, calls ppp_register_net_channel() (which
sets chan->ppp), and only then publishes sk->sk_state, with no release
store to pair with. The reader then loads po->chan.ppp inside ppp_input()
with no acquire. As far as I can tell the worst outcome is ppp_input()
seeing !pch and dropping the frame, so this looks like an annotation
question rather than a correctness one. pppol2tp_recv() has the same
unannotated pattern.
[Severity: Low]
Can frames reach ppp_input() out of arrival order now? Two paths can feed
the same channel:
pppoe_rcv() -> ppp_input() (softirq, no socket lock)
release_sock() -> pppoe_backlog_rcv() -> ppp_input() (process context)
pppox_ioctl(PPPIOCGCHAN) sets sk->sk_state |= PPPOX_BOUND under lock_sock().
A frame that arrived just before that, while the socket was owned by the
ioctl caller, went to the socket backlog. A frame arriving after the BOUND
store but before release_sock() takes the new fast path and is handed to
ppp_input() immediately, ahead of the older backlogged one.
ppp_input() serializes internally, and the window only exists once per
session while LCP/auth frames are in flight, so this may be acceptable --
but is it worth a note?
[Severity: Low]
Does this leave the documented channel contract stale?
include/linux/ppp_channel.h {
* SMP locking notes:
* The channel code must ensure that when it calls ppp_unregister_channel,
* nothing is executing in any of the procedures above, for that
* channel.
}
ppp_input() is one of the listed procedures. After this change pppoe_rcv()
calls it from softirq with no serialization, while every pppoe caller that
reaches ppp_unregister_channel() via pppox_unbind_sock() -- pppoe_release(),
pppoe_flush_dev(), pppoe_unbind_sock_work(), pppoe_connect() -- does so
without draining in-flight ppp_input() callers. In pppoe_connect() the new
synchronize_net() sits after pppox_unbind_sock(), so it fences the later
memset(&po->chan) and re-registration rather than the unregister itself.
The RCU-deferred struct channel free from ec4215683e47 does appear to close
the use-after-free, and pppol2tp_recv() already calls ppp_input() the same
lockless way, so this is about the text rather than a runtime failure.
Should include/linux/ppp_channel.h (and possibly
Documentation/networking/ppp_generic.rst) be updated to describe the
RCU-based rule that now makes this safe?
[ ... ]
> @@ -625,6 +629,13 @@ static int pppoe_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr_unsized *uservaddr
> pn = pppoe_pernet(sock_net(sk));
> delete_item(pn, po->pppoe_pa.sid,
> po->pppoe_pa.remote, po->pppoe_ifindex);
> +
> + /* pppoe_rcv() can call ppp_input() without taking the socket
> + * lock. Once the socket is unhashed, wait for any receive path
> + * that found it earlier before clearing and reusing po->chan.
> + */
> + synchronize_net();
> +
> if (po->pppoe_dev) {
> dev_put(po->pppoe_dev);
> po->pppoe_dev = NULL;
[Severity: Low]
Is holding the socket lock across the grace period necessary here?
pppoe_connect() takes lock_sock(sk) at the top, so every disconnect/rebind
of a session now blocks other users of that socket for a full,
non-expedited RCU grace period. The drain is only needed to protect the
following memset(&po->chan, 0, sizeof(po->chan)), so could it be arranged
without the socket lock held?
For the record, this does not look like it can stall RTNL:
delete_item() unhashes the socket before synchronize_net(), and
pppoe_flush_dev() only locks sockets it finds by walking pn->hash_table, so
the RTNL-holding notifier cannot find the socket sleeping in the grace
period.
--
pw-bot: cr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-06 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 7:44 [PATCH net-next] pppoe: pass bound packets directly to generic PPP Qingfang Deng
2026-08-06 1:28 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-08-06 3:11 ` Qingfang Deng
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=20260806012820.1905519-2-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=ericwouds@gmail.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manizada@pm.me \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=norbert@doyensec.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=qingfang.deng@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