From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
To: "Nikola Z. Ivanov" <zlatistiv@gmail.com>
Cc: dsahern@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org,
kuniyu@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
syzbot+84d4a405ed798b40c96d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Change allocation flags to match rcu_read_lock section requirements
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:55:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260719125507.GA2005035@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260719105759.558050-1-zlatistiv@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 01:57:59PM +0300, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
> Since the call to __ip6_del_rt_siblings has been converted under
> rcu read lock and it only has one call point
> we should no longer block or yield.
>
> Our stack trace from the syzbot reproducer looks as follows:
>
> __ip6_del_rt_siblings
> rtnl_notify (Here we pass gfp_any() -> GFP_KERNEL)
> nlmsg_notify
> nlmsg_multicast
> nlmsg_multicast_filtered
> netlink_broadcast_filtered (GFP_KERNEL passed from earlier)
>
> netlink_broadcast_filtered can yield if GFP_KERNEL
> is passed, which we do not want to happen.
>
> Fix this by changing the allocation flag of rtnl_notify.
>
> Also change the flag passed to nlmsg_new. Even though it
> is not related to the syzbot generated bug it still falls
> under the same requirements.
I believe that the nlmsg_new() change is a no-op given that gfp_any()
evaluates to GFP_ATOMIC under spin_lock_bh(), but it makes
__ip6_del_rt_siblings() consistent with inet6_rt_notify() which already
uses GFP_ATOMIC for both nlmsg_new() and rtnl_notify().
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+84d4a405ed798b40c96d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84d4a405ed798b40c96d
> Fixes: bd11ff421d36 ("ipv6: Get rid of RTNL for SIOCDELRT and RTM_DELROUTE.")
> Signed-off-by: Nikola Z. Ivanov <zlatistiv@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-19 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-19 10:57 [PATCH net] ipv6: Change allocation flags to match rcu_read_lock section requirements Nikola Z. Ivanov
2026-07-19 12:55 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
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=20260719125507.GA2005035@shredder \
--to=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=syzbot+84d4a405ed798b40c96d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=zlatistiv@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