Re: [PATCH] gtp: disable BH before calling udp_tunnel_xmit_skb()

Justin Iurman
2026-04-21T18:08:55Z

On 4/20/26 21:44, David CARLIER wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 20:02, Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/17/26 07:54, David Carlier wrote:
>>> gtp_genl_send_echo_req() runs as a generic netlink doit handler in
>>> process context with BH not disabled. It calls udp_tunnel_xmit_skb(),
>>> which eventually invokes iptunnel_xmit() — that uses __this_cpu_inc/dec
>>> on softnet_data.xmit.recursion to track the tunnel xmit recursion level.
>>>
>>> Without local_bh_disable(), the task may migrate between
>>> dev_xmit_recursion_inc() and dev_xmit_recursion_dec(), breaking the
>>> per-CPU counter pairing. The result is stale or negative recursion
>>> levels that can later produce false-positive
>>> SKB_DROP_REASON_RECURSION_LIMIT drops on either CPU.
>>>
>>> The other udp_tunnel_xmit_skb() call sites in gtp.c are unaffected:
>>> the data path runs under ndo_start_xmit and the echo response handlers
>>> run from the UDP encap rx softirq, both with BH already disabled.
>>>
>>> Fix it by disabling BH around the udp_tunnel_xmit_skb() call, mirroring
>>> commit 2cd7e6971fc2 ("sctp: disable BH before calling
>>> udp_tunnel_xmit_skb()").
>>
>> Why not fix iptunnel_xmit() directly, rather than fixing all possible
>> callers? Basically, jut like we did for lwtunnel_{output|xmit}(). The
>> advantage would be that we no longer have to worry about BHs in the
>> callers, and BHs would only be disabled when necessary.
>
> Good point — your lwtunnel fix (c03a49f3093a) is a close parallel, and
> a central fix would avoid chasing callers one by one (sctp was patched
> last week, gtp is this one, and tipc/wireguard/ovpn genl paths look
> similar).
>
> Happy to respin as v2 with local_bh_disable/enable moved into
> iptunnel_xmit() (and ip6tunnel_xmit() for symmetry), and drop the
> gtp-local hunk. That would also supersede Xin Long's recent sctp
> commit
> (2cd7e6971fc2), so I'll make sure to Cc him.

Jakub merged it already, so no need to respin. I guess we could revisit
later if required.

> One thing I'd like your take on before I send: iptunnel_xmit() feels
> like the natural home since it owns the recursion counter, but would
> you rather see it in udp_tunnel_xmit_skb()? I don't want to pick the
> wrong spot if you already have a preference.

Since udp_tunnel_xmit_skb() is just another caller, I'd definitely do it
in iptunnel_xmit() to centralize things (same for v6).