From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: nb@tipi-net.de
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, justin.chen@broadcom.com,
horms@kernel.org, mohsin.bashr@gmail.com, opendmb@gmail.com,
florian.fainelli@broadcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
rajashekar.hudumula@broadcom.com, vikas.gupta@broadcom.com,
bhargava.marreddy@broadcom.com, sashal@kernel.org,
ebiggers@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 1/7] net: bcmgenet: convert RX path to page_pool
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:37:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260501013724.3164844-2-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260428205846.2625550-2-nb@tipi-net.de>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
net: bcmgenet: convert RX path to page_pool
This patch replaces the per-packet __netdev_alloc_skb() + dma_map_single()
in the bcmgenet RX path with page_pool, adding a page_pool per RX ring and
building SKBs from pages via napi_build_skb() with skb_mark_for_recycle().
A few questions on the changes below.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
> index 54f71b1e85fc..d013a3df9048 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,13 @@
> #define RX_BUF_LENGTH 2048
> #define SKB_ALIGNMENT 32
>
> +/* Page pool RX buffer layout:
> + * XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM | RSB(64) + pad(2) | frame data | skb_shared_info
> + * The HW writes the 64B RSB + 2B alignment padding before the frame.
> + */
> +#define GENET_RSB_PAD (sizeof(struct status_64) + 2)
> +#define GENET_RX_HEADROOM (XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM + GENET_RSB_PAD)
Is GENET_RX_HEADROOM used anywhere? A grep of the tree after this patch
shows no references to it; all call sites use XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM and
GENET_RSB_PAD separately. Can this macro be dropped?
Jakub: false positive
Also, XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM is referenced here and in three other places in
bcmgenet.c (bcmgenet_rx_refill, bcmgenet_desc_rx, and
bcmgenet_rx_ring_create_pool), but the only new include added by the
patch is <net/page_pool/helpers.h> in bcmgenet.h. XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM is
defined in include/uapi/linux/bpf.h, and the helpers.h/types.h chain does
not include it. Would it be worth adding an explicit #include
<linux/bpf.h> to bcmgenet.c so this does not rely on transitive inclusion
(other drivers using this macro, e.g. bnxt, include it explicitly)?
> @@ -2250,46 +2249,30 @@ static netdev_tx_t bcmgenet_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> -static struct sk_buff *bcmgenet_rx_refill(struct bcmgenet_priv *priv,
> - struct enet_cb *cb)
> +static int bcmgenet_rx_refill(struct bcmgenet_rx_ring *ring,
> + struct enet_cb *cb)
> {
[ ... ]
> - /* Allocate a new Rx skb */
> - skb = __netdev_alloc_skb(priv->dev, priv->rx_buf_len + SKB_ALIGNMENT,
> - GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
After this conversion, priv->rx_buf_len no longer has any readers; the
old dma_map_single/dma_unmap paths that consumed it are gone, and the new
code uses RX_BUF_LENGTH directly in pp_params.max_len and
page_pool_dma_sync_for_cpu(). bcmgenet_init() still writes the field.
Should priv->rx_buf_len be removed as part of this cleanup?
[ ... ]
> @@ -2341,25 +2324,28 @@ static unsigned int bcmgenet_desc_rx(struct bcmgenet_rx_ring *ring,
> while ((rxpktprocessed < rxpkttoprocess) &&
> (rxpktprocessed < budget)) {
> struct status_64 *status;
> + struct page *rx_page;
> + unsigned int rx_off;
> __be16 rx_csum;
> + void *hard_start;
>
> cb = &priv->rx_cbs[ring->read_ptr];
[ ... ]
> + page_pool_dma_sync_for_cpu(ring->page_pool, rx_page, 0,
> + RX_BUF_LENGTH);
page_pool_dma_sync_for_cpu() is called unconditionally with a fixed size
of RX_BUF_LENGTH (2048) even when the actual received frame is much
smaller. The received length is available in the descriptor status word
once it is read. On the non-cache-coherent SoCs this driver targets
(for example BCM2711), is there a reason not to sync only the number of
bytes that were actually received?
[ ... ]
> @@ -2375,7 +2361,8 @@ static unsigned int bcmgenet_desc_rx(struct bcmgenet_rx_ring *ring,
> if (unlikely(len > RX_BUF_LENGTH)) {
> netif_err(priv, rx_status, dev, "oversized packet\n");
> BCMGENET_STATS64_INC(stats, length_errors);
[ ... ]
> @@ -2411,24 +2399,47 @@ static unsigned int bcmgenet_desc_rx(struct bcmgenet_rx_ring *ring,
[ ... ]
> - skb_put(skb, len);
> + /* Build SKB from the page - data starts at hard_start,
> + * frame begins after RSB(64) + pad(2) = 66 bytes.
> + */
> + skb = napi_build_skb(hard_start, PAGE_SIZE - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM);
> + if (unlikely(!skb)) {
> + BCMGENET_STATS64_INC(stats, dropped);
> + page_pool_put_full_page(ring->page_pool, rx_page,
> + true);
> + goto next;
> + }
>
> - /* remove RSB and hardware 2bytes added for IP alignment */
> - skb_pull(skb, 66);
> - len -= 66;
> + skb_mark_for_recycle(skb);
> +
> + /* Reserve the RSB + pad, then set the data length */
> + skb_reserve(skb, GENET_RSB_PAD);
> + __skb_put(skb, len - GENET_RSB_PAD);
Can len here be smaller than GENET_RSB_PAD (66)? len is taken from
status->length_status >> DMA_BUFLENGTH_SHIFT and the only bound checked
above is the upper bound against RX_BUF_LENGTH:
if (unlikely(len > RX_BUF_LENGTH)) {
...
}
If HW ever reports a runt length below 66 (for example after a reset or
due to an errata path), len - GENET_RSB_PAD underflows as an unsigned
value. __skb_put() is the unchecked variant:
static inline void *__skb_put(struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int len)
{
void *tmp = skb_tail_pointer(skb);
SKB_LINEAR_ASSERT(skb);
skb->tail += len;
skb->len += len;
return tmp;
}
so it will not trip skb_over_panic(); instead skb->tail/skb->len advance
past skb->end into the page. Since napi_build_skb() was given
frag_size = PAGE_SIZE - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM, skb->end sits inside the
same page_pool-backed page and the SKB would then expose recycled
page_pool memory up the stack via napi_gro_receive().
The previous code used skb_put(skb, len) followed by skb_pull(skb, 66),
both of which are bounds-checked. Would it make sense to add an
explicit guard such as:
if (unlikely(len < GENET_RSB_PAD)) {
BCMGENET_STATS64_INC(stats, length_errors);
page_pool_put_full_page(ring->page_pool, rx_page, true);
goto next;
}
before the __skb_put() call?
Jakub: I suppose.. IDK if protecting against bad HW is required, up to you
> if (priv->crc_fwd_en) {
> - skb_trim(skb, len - ETH_FCS_LEN);
> - len -= ETH_FCS_LEN;
> + skb_trim(skb, skb->len - ETH_FCS_LEN);
> }
The same underflow concern applies here: if skb->len is less than
ETH_FCS_LEN, skb->len - ETH_FCS_LEN wraps to a very large unsigned
value, and skb_trim() does:
void skb_trim(struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int len)
{
if (skb->len > len)
__skb_trim(skb, len);
}
so the trim is silently skipped and the FCS stays attached. Should this
path also validate skb->len before subtracting ETH_FCS_LEN?
[ ... ]
--
pw-bot: cr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-01 1:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-28 20:58 [PATCH net-next v8 0/7] net: bcmgenet: add XDP support Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 1/7] net: bcmgenet: convert RX path to page_pool Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-05-01 1:37 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 2/7] net: bcmgenet: register xdp_rxq_info for each RX ring Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 3/7] net: bcmgenet: add basic XDP support (PASS/DROP) Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 4/7] net: bcmgenet: add XDP_TX support Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-05-01 1:39 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 5/7] net: bcmgenet: add XDP_REDIRECT and ndo_xdp_xmit support Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-05-01 1:40 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 6/7] net: bcmgenet: add XDP statistics counters Nicolai Buchwitz
2026-05-01 1:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-28 20:58 ` [PATCH net-next v8 7/7] net: bcmgenet: reject MTU changes incompatible with XDP Nicolai Buchwitz
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=20260501013724.3164844-2-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=bhargava.marreddy@broadcom.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=florian.fainelli@broadcom.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=justin.chen@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mohsin.bashr@gmail.com \
--cc=nb@tipi-net.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=opendmb@gmail.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rajashekar.hudumula@broadcom.com \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=vikas.gupta@broadcom.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