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>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com>,
Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Taegu Ha <hataegu0826@gmail.com>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>,
Eric Woudstra <ericwouds@gmail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Dawid Osuchowski <dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ppp: unify two channel structs
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 13:16:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <590d7931-02b0-45d6-8f43-ef909c9bde89@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260430090532.244758-2-qingfang.deng@linux.dev>
On 4/30/26 11:05 AM, Qingfang Deng wrote:
> Historically, PPP maintained two separate structures for a channel:
> 'struct channel' was internal to ppp_generic.c, while 'struct ppp_channel'
> was the public interface that drivers were required to embed. This
> duplication was redundant and forced drivers to manage the lifecycle of
> the public structure.
>
> Unify these two structures into a single 'struct ppp_channel', which is
> now internal to ppp_generic.c. Drivers now use a 'ppp_channel_conf'
> structure to specify registration parameters and receive an opaque
> pointer to the allocated channel.
>
> Key changes:
> - ppp_register_channel() and ppp_register_net_channel() now return
> a 'struct ppp_channel *' instead of taking a pointer to a driver-
> embedded structure.
> - 'struct ppp_channel_ops' methods now take the driver's 'private'
> pointer directly as their first argument, simplifying driver logic.
> - ppp_unregister_channel() now takes the opaque pointer.
> - Multilink-specific fields are unified and handled via the new
> configuration structure.
>
> This cleanup simplifies the driver interface and makes the channel
> lifecycle management more robust by centralizing allocation in the PPP
> generic layer.
>
> Assisted-by: Gemini:gemini-3-flash
> Signed-off-by: Qingfang Deng <qingfang.deng@linux.dev>
> ---
> drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c | 51 +++++-----
> drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c | 161 +++++++++++++++----------------
> drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c | 51 +++++-----
> drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c | 34 ++++---
> drivers/net/ppp/pppox.c | 4 +-
> drivers/net/ppp/pptp.c | 40 ++++----
> drivers/tty/ipwireless/network.c | 30 +++---
> include/linux/if_pppox.h | 2 +-
> include/linux/ppp_channel.h | 49 ++++++----
> net/atm/pppoatm.c | 61 ++++++------
> net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c | 34 ++++---
> 11 files changed, 271 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-)
This patch is IMHO a bit too big and should be split. Also this kind of
refactor looks very invasive and potentially regression prone. I think
it should include a signficant self-test coverage increase.
> @@ -391,9 +396,9 @@ ppp_async_init(void)
> * The following routines provide the PPP channel interface.
> */
> static int
> -ppp_async_ioctl(struct ppp_channel *chan, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> +ppp_async_ioctl(void *private, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> - struct asyncppp *ap = chan->private;
> + struct asyncppp *ap = private;
> void __user *argp = (void __user *)arg;
> int __user *p = argp;
> int err, val;
Minor nit: reverse christmas tree above
> @@ -2985,16 +2983,13 @@ char *ppp_dev_name(struct ppp_channel *chan)
> * This must be called in process context.
> */
> void
> -ppp_unregister_channel(struct ppp_channel *chan)
> +ppp_unregister_channel(struct ppp_channel *pch)
> {
> - struct channel *pch = chan->ppp;
> struct ppp_net *pn;
>
> if (!pch)
> return; /* should never happen */
>
> - chan->ppp = NULL;
> -
Sashiko says:
Could this specific ordering introduce a race condition that might lead
to a use-after-free?
If userspace has a file descriptor attached to this channel, it can
concurrently invoke the PPPIOCCONNECT ioctl. Because
ppp_disconnect_channel()
clears pch->ppp and removes the channel from its current unit before
pch->file.dead is set to 1, the concurrent ioctl could observe
pch->file.dead == 0.
This would allow ppp_connect_channel() to successfully attach the dying
channel to a new PPP unit. Once ppp_unregister_channel() completes and
frees the channel, the new PPP unit would retain a pointer to the freed
memory in its channels list, which might be accessed during a later
packet transmission via ppp_push().
> @@ -215,7 +210,8 @@ static void pppoatm_push(struct atm_vcc *atmvcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
> !memcmp(skb->data, &pppllc[LLC_LEN],
> sizeof(pppllc) - LLC_LEN)) {
> pvcc->encaps = e_vc;
> - pvcc->chan.mtu += LLC_LEN;
> + ppp_channel_update_mtu(pvcc->chan,
> + atmvcc->qos.txtp.max_sdu - PPP_HDRLEN);
Does the above introduce a functional change? At very least some comment
needed. Also possibly better move the update_mtu wrapper to a pre-req patch.
> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static void pppol2tp_recv(struct l2tp_session *session, struct sk_buff *skb, int
> struct pppox_sock *po;
>
> po = pppox_sk(sk);
> - ppp_input(&po->chan, skb);
> + ppp_input(po->chan, skb);
Sashiko says:
Does decoupling the channel lifetime from the driver structure introduce
a use-after-free when receiving packets?
Previously, the struct ppp_channel was embedded in struct pppox_sock,
meaning its lifecycle was safely tied to the socket's refcount. Now that
po->chan is dynamically allocated and freed during pppox_unbind_sock()
via ppp_unregister_channel(), it seems possible for pppol2tp_recv() to
access freed memory.
Since pppol2tp_recv() runs locklessly in softirq context while holding
only rcu_read_lock() and a socket reference, can it observe the
PPPOX_BOUND state and dereference po->chan just after it was freed on
another CPU?
/P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-05 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-30 9:05 [PATCH net-next 1/3] ppp: use file.dead to check channel unregistration Qingfang Deng
2026-04-30 9:05 ` [PATCH net-next 2/3] ppp: unify two channel structs Qingfang Deng
2026-05-05 11:16 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2026-04-30 9:05 ` [PATCH net-next 3/3] docs: update ppp_generic.rst for API changes 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=590d7931-02b0-45d6-8f43-ef909c9bde89@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=3chas3@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=ericwouds@gmail.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hataegu0826@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mitch@sfgoth.com \
--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