* [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock
@ 2025-10-14 16:37 Breno Leitao
2025-10-16 12:40 ` Simon Horman
2025-10-16 23:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Breno Leitao @ 2025-10-14 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni,
Simon Horman
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, kernel-team, Breno Leitao
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 v3:
- Removed the "return" before the exit labels. (Simon)
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251014-fix_netpoll_aa-v2-1-dafa6a378649@debian.org
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 | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
index 60a05d3b7c249..b8729ec1daeb8 100644
--- a/net/core/netpoll.c
+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
@@ -232,14 +232,27 @@ 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);
}
+
+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>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock
2025-10-14 16:37 [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock Breno Leitao
@ 2025-10-16 12:40 ` Simon Horman
2025-10-16 23:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2025-10-16 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Breno Leitao
Cc: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni,
netdev, linux-kernel, kernel-team
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 09:37:50AM -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 v3:
> - Removed the "return" before the exit labels. (Simon)
> - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251014-fix_netpoll_aa-v2-1-dafa6a378649@debian.org
>
> 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
Thanks for the updates.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock
2025-10-14 16:37 [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock Breno Leitao
2025-10-16 12:40 ` Simon Horman
@ 2025-10-16 23:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-11-03 14:12 ` Breno Leitao
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2025-10-16 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Breno Leitao
Cc: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Paolo Abeni, Simon Horman, netdev,
linux-kernel, kernel-team
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:37:50 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> + while (1) {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> + if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> + goto unlock;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
No need for the lock here:
if (READ_ONCE(..) >= MAX_SKBS)
> 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;
Not sure this is strictly needed, the number 32 (MAX_SKBS) was not
chosen super scientifically anyway, doesn't matter if we go over a
little. But if we care I think we can:
if (skb_pool->qlen < MAX_SKBS)
__skb_queue_tail(skb_pool, skb);
else
dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
and there's no need for the gotos
> __skb_queue_tail(skb_pool, skb);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> }
--
pw-bot: cr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock
2025-10-16 23:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
@ 2025-11-03 14:12 ` Breno Leitao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Breno Leitao @ 2025-11-03 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Kicinski
Cc: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Paolo Abeni, Simon Horman, netdev,
linux-kernel, kernel-team
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 04:23:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:37:50 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> > + while (1) {
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
> > + if (skb_pool->qlen >= MAX_SKBS)
> > + goto unlock;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool->lock, flags);
>
> No need for the lock here:
>
> if (READ_ONCE(..) >= MAX_SKBS)
>
> > 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;
>
> Not sure this is strictly needed, the number 32 (MAX_SKBS) was not
> chosen super scientifically anyway, doesn't matter if we go over a
> little.
Agree. I will take this approach them, since it is not going to hurt at
all.
Thanks for the review,
--breno
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-03 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-14 16:37 [PATCH net v3] netpoll: Fix deadlock in memory allocation under spinlock Breno Leitao
2025-10-16 12:40 ` Simon Horman
2025-10-16 23:23 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-11-03 14:12 ` Breno Leitao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).