From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: maoyixie.tju@gmail.com
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
vburru@marvell.com, sedara@marvell.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 2/2] octeon_ep_vf: fix skb frags overflow in the RX path
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:49:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260720234956.464154-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260704061511.2350737-3-maoyixie.tju@gmail.com>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
octeon_ep_vf: fix skb frags overflow in the RX path
This patch adds a MAX_SKB_FRAGS check in __octep_vf_oq_process_rx() so
packets that would require more fragments than the skb can hold are
dropped, and factors the descriptor-drain loop into a new
octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() helper that is shared with the napi_build_skb()
failure path.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep_vf/octep_vf_rx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep_vf/octep_vf_rx.c
> index d98247408242..aa77b673ae3e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep_vf/octep_vf_rx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeon_ep_vf/octep_vf_rx.c
> @@ -357,6 +357,29 @@ static inline u32 octep_vf_oq_next_idx(struct octep_vf_oq *oq, u32 idx)
> return (idx + 1 == oq->max_count) ? 0 : idx + 1;
> }
>
> +static void octep_vf_oq_drop_rx(struct octep_vf_oq *oq,
> + struct octep_vf_rx_buffer *buff_info,
> + u32 *read_idx, u32 *desc_used)
> +{
> + u16 data_len = buff_info->len - oq->max_single_buffer_size;
> +
> + (*desc_used)++;
> + *read_idx = octep_vf_oq_next_idx(oq, *read_idx);
> + while (data_len) {
> + dma_unmap_page(oq->dev, oq->desc_ring[*read_idx].buffer_ptr,
> + PAGE_SIZE, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> + buff_info = (struct octep_vf_rx_buffer *)
> + &oq->buff_info[*read_idx];
> + buff_info->page = NULL;
> + if (data_len < oq->buffer_size)
> + data_len = 0;
> + else
> + data_len -= oq->buffer_size;
> + (*desc_used)++;
> + *read_idx = octep_vf_oq_next_idx(oq, *read_idx);
> + }
> +}
[High]
Does octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() leak the pages backing the dropped
descriptors?
The helper dma_unmap_page()s each fragment descriptor and then just sets
buff_info->page = NULL, without ever calling put_page() on the page that
was allocated by dev_alloc_page() in octep_vf_oq_fill_ring_buffers() or
octep_vf_oq_refill().
Compare with octep_vf_oq_free_ring_buffers() in the same file, which
appears to be the intended release pattern:
for (i = 0; i < oq->max_count; i++) {
if (oq->buff_info[i].page) {
dma_unmap_page(oq->dev, desc_ring[i].buffer_ptr,
PAGE_SIZE, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
put_page(oq->buff_info[i].page);
oq->buff_info[i].page = NULL;
desc_ring[i].buffer_ptr = 0;
}
}
After octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() returns, octep_vf_oq_refill() will overwrite
buff_info[refill_idx].page with a freshly allocated page from
dev_alloc_page(), so the previously-mapped page pointer is lost without
a matching put_page(), isn't it?
The head descriptor of the dropped packet looks affected too. The caller
in __octep_vf_oq_process_rx() has already stashed the head page's kernel
address into resp_hw and cleared buff_info->page:
resp_hw = page_address(buff_info->page);
buff_info->page = NULL;
On the two paths that now call octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() (the new
MAX_SKB_FRAGS-exceeded branch and the napi_build_skb() failure branch),
napi_build_skb() is either never called or returned NULL, so no skb has
taken ownership of resp_hw. Is the head page also leaked in these cases?
> @@ -431,25 +454,16 @@ static int __octep_vf_oq_process_rx(struct octep_vf_device *oct,
> struct skb_shared_info *shinfo;
> u16 data_len;
>
> + data_len = buff_info->len - oq->max_single_buffer_size;
> + if (DIV_ROUND_UP(data_len, oq->buffer_size) > MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> + octep_vf_oq_drop_rx(oq, buff_info, &read_idx, &desc_used);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> skb = napi_build_skb((void *)resp_hw, PAGE_SIZE);
> if (!skb) {
> oq->stats->alloc_failures++;
> - desc_used++;
> - read_idx = octep_vf_oq_next_idx(oq, read_idx);
> - data_len = buff_info->len - oq->max_single_buffer_size;
> - while (data_len) {
> - dma_unmap_page(oq->dev, oq->desc_ring[read_idx].buffer_ptr,
> - PAGE_SIZE, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> - buff_info = (struct octep_vf_rx_buffer *)
> - &oq->buff_info[read_idx];
> - buff_info->page = NULL;
> - if (data_len < oq->buffer_size)
> - data_len = 0;
> - else
> - data_len -= oq->buffer_size;
> - desc_used++;
> - read_idx = octep_vf_oq_next_idx(oq, read_idx);
> - }
> + octep_vf_oq_drop_rx(oq, buff_info, &read_idx, &desc_used);
> continue;
> }
[High]
The napi_build_skb() failure path had the same missing put_page() before
this patch, so that part is a pre-existing issue.
The newly added MAX_SKB_FRAGS check reaches octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() on a
device-triggered path (buff_info->len comes from the response header),
so a misbehaving or malicious device that repeatedly sends packets whose
fragment count exceeds MAX_SKB_FRAGS would drop roughly 18 pages per
packet with no accounting.
Would it be reasonable to have octep_vf_oq_drop_rx() put_page() the head
page (or have the caller do so before invoking it) and put_page() each
fragment page after dma_unmap_page(), mirroring the release sequence in
octep_vf_oq_free_ring_buffers()?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-20 23:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-04 6:15 [PATCH net v3 0/2] octeon_ep, octeon_ep_vf: fix skb frags overflow in the RX path Maoyi Xie
2026-07-04 6:15 ` [PATCH net v3 1/2] octeon_ep: " Maoyi Xie
2026-07-20 23:49 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-07-04 6:15 ` [PATCH net v3 2/2] octeon_ep_vf: " Maoyi Xie
2026-07-06 9:40 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2026-07-20 23:49 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-07-20 23:50 ` [PATCH net v3 0/2] octeon_ep, " Jakub Kicinski
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=20260720234956.464154-1-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=maoyixie.tju@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sedara@marvell.com \
--cc=vburru@marvell.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