From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
usamaarif642@gmail.com, riel@surriel.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:11:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aO5aJ9dN5xIIdmNE@horms.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251014-fix_netpoll_aa-v2-1-dafa6a378649@debian.org>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 03:10:51AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Fix a AA deadlock in refill_skbs() where memory allocation while holding
> skb_pool->lock can trigger a recursive lock acquisition attempt.
>
> The deadlock scenario occurs when the system is under severe memory
> pressure:
>
> 1. refill_skbs() acquires skb_pool->lock (spinlock)
> 2. alloc_skb() is called while holding the lock
> 3. Memory allocator fails and calls slab_out_of_memory()
> 4. This triggers printk() for the OOM warning
> 5. The console output path calls netpoll_send_udp()
> 6. netpoll_send_udp() attempts to acquire the same skb_pool->lock
> 7. Deadlock: the lock is already held by the same CPU
>
> Call stack:
> refill_skbs()
> spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock) <- lock acquired
> __alloc_skb()
> kmem_cache_alloc_node_noprof()
> slab_out_of_memory()
> printk()
> console_flush_all()
> netpoll_send_udp()
> skb_dequeue()
> spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock) <- deadlock attempt
>
> This bug was exposed by commit 248f6571fd4c51 ("netpoll: Optimize skb
> refilling on critical path") which removed refill_skbs() from the
> critical path (where nested printk was being deferred), letting nested
> printk being calld form inside refill_skbs()
>
> Refactor refill_skbs() to never allocate memory while holding
> the spinlock.
>
> Another possible solution to fix this problem is protecting the
> refill_skbs() from nested printks, basically calling
> printk_deferred_{enter,exit}() in refill_skbs(), then, any nested
> pr_warn() would be deferred.
>
> I prefer tthis approach, given I _think_ it might be a good idea to move
> the alloc_skb() from GFP_ATOMIC to GFP_KERNEL in the future, so, having
> the alloc_skb() outside of the lock will be necessary step.
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> Fixes: 248f6571fd4c51 ("netpoll: Optimize skb refilling on critical path")
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Added a return after the successful path (Rik van Riel)
> - Changed the Fixes tag to point to the commit that exposed the problem.
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251013-fix_netpoll_aa-v1-1-94a1091f92f0@debian.org
> ---
> net/core/netpoll.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> index 60a05d3b7c249..c19dada9283ce 100644
> --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> @@ -232,14 +232,28 @@ static void refill_skbs(struct netpoll *np)
>
> skb_pool = &np->skb_pool;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> - while (skb_pool->qlen < MAX_SKBS) {
> + while (1) {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> + if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> + goto unlock;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> +
> skb = alloc_skb(MAX_SKB_SIZE, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!skb)
> - break;
> + return;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> + if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> + /* Discard if len got increased (TOCTOU) */
> + goto discard;
> __skb_queue_tail(skb_pool, skb);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> }
> +
> + return;
Maybe it is worth leaving alone for clarity.
And certainly it does no harm.
But the line above is never reached.
Flagged by Smatch.
> +discard:
> + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> +unlock:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> }
>
>
> ---
> base-commit: c5705a2a4aa35350e504b72a94b5c71c3754833c
> change-id: 20251013-fix_netpoll_aa-c991ac5f2138
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-14 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-14 10:10 [PATCH net v2] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock Breno Leitao
2025-10-14 14:11 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2025-10-14 16:13 ` Breno Leitao
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=aO5aJ9dN5xIIdmNE@horms.kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
/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