From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Qingfang Deng <qingfang.deng@linux.dev>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
Taegu Ha <hataegu0826@gmail.com>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ppp: consolidate RX skb queueing
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:54:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <410c814a-399a-4eb9-a39a-d1e5fecd6b33@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260428024426.48605-1-qingfang.deng@linux.dev>
On 4/28/26 4:44 AM, Qingfang Deng wrote:
> In ppp_input() and ppp_receive_nonmp_frame(), received skbs are queued
> for userspace delivery using the same open-coded pattern:
>
> skb_queue_tail(&pf->rq, skb);
> while (pf->rq.qlen > PPP_MAX_RQLEN &&
> (skb = skb_dequeue(&pf->rq)))
> kfree_skb(skb);
> wake_up_interruptible(&pf->rwait);
>
> This has a potential race: skb_queue_tail() releases the queue lock,
> then qlen is read locklessly before skb_dequeue() re-acquires it.
> Another CPU enqueueing concurrently could cause the length check to see
> stale data. This race is benign, as it only causes extra skbs to be
> freed in the worst case.
>
> Introduce ppp_file_queue_rx_skb() to perform the enqueue, length check,
> and trim atomically under a single pf->rq.lock critical section. As both
> callers have softirq disabled, plain spin_lock() can be used instead of
> _bh()/_irqsave() variants. Since only one skb is enqueued at a time, the
> queue can exceed PPP_MAX_RQLEN by at most one frame, so replace the
> while-loop with an if-statement. While at it, use skb_queue_len()
> instead of open-coding the qlen access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qingfang Deng <qingfang.deng@linux.dev>
> ---
> drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> index 57c68efa5ff8..6ab5011540a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> @@ -2307,6 +2307,27 @@ static bool ppp_channel_bridge_input(struct channel *pch, struct sk_buff *skb)
> return !!pchb;
> }
>
> +/* Queue up and deliver a received skb to userspace.
> + * Must be called in softirq.
> + */
> +static void ppp_file_queue_rx_skb(struct ppp_file *pf, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&pf->rq.lock);
> + __skb_queue_tail(&pf->rq, skb);
> + /* limit queue length by dropping old frames */
> + if (unlikely(skb_queue_len(&pf->rq) > PPP_MAX_RQLEN)) {
> + struct sk_buff *old = __skb_peek(&pf->rq);
> +
> + __skb_unlink(old, &pf->rq);
> + spin_unlock(&pf->rq.lock);
> + kfree_skb(old);
> + } else {
> + spin_unlock(&pf->rq.lock);
Note that after __skb_queue_tail(), skb_queue_len(&pf->rq) could be ==
PPP_MAX_RQLEN + 2, due to the slightly different check in
ppp_prepare_tx_skb().
I think the above it could/should be simplified to:
while (unlikely(skb_queue_len(&pf->rq) > PPP_MAX_RQLEN))
kfree_skb(__skb_dequeue(&pf->rq));
spin_unlock(&pf->rq.lock);
And possibly it would make sense to consolidate the test in
ppp_prepare_tx_skb(), too for consistency - in that case an `if`
statement should become enough.
/P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-30 8:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-28 2:44 [PATCH net-next] ppp: consolidate RX skb queueing Qingfang Deng
2026-04-28 6:43 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-04-30 8:54 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2026-05-06 2:54 ` Qingfang Deng
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=410c814a-399a-4eb9-a39a-d1e5fecd6b33@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=hataegu0826@gmail.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qingfang.deng@linux.dev \
/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