Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event

[Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:24:22PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> A debug patch in linux-next-20260121
> ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit?id=fc0f090e41e652d158f946c616cdd82baed3c8f4 )
> has demonstrated that calling xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush()
> when (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) == 0 helps releasing "struct net_device" refcount.
> 
>   unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2
>   ref_tracker: netdev@ffff88805d3c0628 has 1/1 users at
>        xfrm_dev_state_add+0x6f4/0xc40 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c:316
>        xfrm_state_construct net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:986 [inline]
>        xfrm_add_sa+0x34ca/0x4230 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:1022
>        xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x746/0xb20 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3507
>        netlink_rcv_skb+0x232/0x4b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550
>        xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x79/0x90 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:3529
>        netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1318 [inline]
>        netlink_unicast+0x80f/0x9b0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1344
>        netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1894
>        sock_sendmsg_nosec+0x18f/0x1d0 net/socket.c:737
>        __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:752 [inline]
>        ____sys_sendmsg+0x589/0x8c0 net/socket.c:2610
>        ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 net/socket.c:2664
>        __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2696 [inline]
>        __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2701 [inline]
>        __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2699 [inline]
>        __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1bd/0x2a0 net/socket.c:2699
>        do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>        do_syscall_64+0xe2/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
>        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>   
>   infiniband: balance for netdevsim0@ib_gid_table_entry is 0
>   ***** Releasing 1 refcount on 0000000000000000
>   ***** Refcount for netdevsim0 changed from 2 to 1
> 
> The bond_master_netdev_event(NETDEV_UNREGISTER) case is already calling
> xfrm_dev_state_flush() without checking (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0.
> Therefore, I assume that (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) != 0 check in
> xfrm_dev_down() is wrong, and I would like to propose
> 
>  static int xfrm_dev_down(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
> - 	if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) {
> -		xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> -		xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> - 	}
> +	xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
> +	xfrm_dev_policy_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
>  
>  	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>  }

Hm, I'd say we should not try to offload to a device that does
not support NETIF_F_HW_ESP.

> 
> change as a fix for "unregister_netdevice: waiting for netdevsim0 to become free. Usage count = 2"
> problem.
> 
> 
> 
> But I have a question regarding security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete().
> 
> xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_state_delete() which can make
> xfrm_dev_state_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() calls security_xfrm_policy_delete() which can make
> xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op by returning an error value.
> 
> Since xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() are called by NETDEV_UNREGISTER
> event (which is a signal for releasing all resources that prevent "struct net_device"
> references from dropping), making xfrm_dev_state_flush()/xfrm_dev_policy_flush() no-op (by
> allowing security_xfrm_state_delete()/security_xfrm_policy_delete() to return an error) is
> a denial-of-service bug.

This means that the calling task doesn't have the permission to delete the
state, some LSM has a policy the does not grant this permission.

> 
> Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
> for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?

This might violate a LSM policy then.