Re: [PATCH net v5] net: stmmac: Prevent NULL deref when RX memory exhausted

Russell King (Oracle)
2026-04-15T16:28:43Z

On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 01:56:32PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 07:39:47PM -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
> > The CPU receives frames from the MAC through conventional DMA: the CPU
> > allocates buffers for the MAC, then the MAC fills them and returns
> > ownership to the CPU. For each hardware RX queue, the CPU and MAC
> > coordinate through a shared ring array of DMA descriptors: one
> > descriptor per DMA buffer. Each descriptor includes the buffer's
> > physical address and a status flag ("OWN") indicating which side owns
> > the buffer: OWN=0 for CPU, OWN=1 for MAC. The CPU is only allowed to set
> > the flag and the MAC is only allowed to clear it, and both must move
> > through the ring in sequence: thus the ring is used for both
> > "submissions" and "completions."
> >
> > In the stmmac driver, stmmac_rx() bookmarks its position in the ring
> > with the `cur_rx` index. The main receive loop in that function checks
> > for rx_descs[cur_rx].own=0, gives the corresponding buffer to the
> > network stack (NULLing the pointer), and increments `cur_rx` modulo the
> > ring size. After the loop exits, stmmac_rx_refill(), which bookmarks its
> > position with `dirty_rx`, allocates fresh buffers and rearms the
> > descriptors (setting OWN=1). If it fails any allocation, it simply stops
> > early (leaving OWN=0) and will retry where it left off when next called.
> >
> > This means descriptors have a three-stage lifecycle (terms my own):
> > - `empty` (OWN=1, buffer valid)
> > - `full` (OWN=0, buffer valid and populated)
> > - `dirty` (OWN=0, buffer NULL)
> >
> > But because stmmac_rx() only checks OWN, it confuses `full`/`dirty`. In
> > the past (see 'Fixes:'), there was a bug where the loop could cycle
> > `cur_rx` all the way back to the first descriptor it dirtied, resulting
> > in a NULL dereference when mistaken for `full`. The aforementioned
> > commit resolved that *specific* failure by capping the loop's iteration
> > limit at `dma_rx_size - 1`, but this is only a partial fix: if the
> > previous stmmac_rx_refill() didn't complete, then there are leftover
> > `dirty` descriptors that the loop might encounter without needing to
> > cycle fully around. The current code therefore panics (see 'Closes:')
> > when stmmac_rx_refill() is memory-starved long enough for `cur_rx` to
> > catch up to `dirty_rx`.
> >
> > Fix this by further tightening the clamp from `dma_rx_size - 1` to
> > `dma_rx_size - stmmac_rx_dirty() - 1`, subtracting any remnant dirty
> > entries and limiting the loop so that `cur_rx` cannot catch back up to
> > `dirty_rx`. This carries no risk of arithmetic underflow: since the
> > maximum possible return value of stmmac_rx_dirty() is `dma_rx_size - 1`,
> > the worst the clamp can do is prevent the loop from running at all.
> >
> > Fixes: b6cb4541853c7 ("net: stmmac: avoid rx queue overrun")
> > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221010
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Edwards <CFSworks@gmail.com>
>
> Locally, while debugging my issues, I used this to prevent cur_rx
> catching up with dirty_rx:
>
> status = stmmac_rx_status(priv, &priv->xstats, p);
> /* check if managed by the DMA otherwise go ahead */
> if (unlikely(status & dma_own))
> break;
>
> next_entry = STMMAC_NEXT_ENTRY(rx_q->cur_rx,
> priv->dma_conf.dma_rx_size);
> if (unlikely(next_entry == rx_q->dirty_rx))
> break;
>
> rx_q->cur_rx = next_entry;
>
> If we care about the cost of reloading rx_q->dirty_rx on every
> iteration, then I'd suggest that the cost we already incur reading and
> writing rx_q->cur_rx is something that should be addressed, and
> eliminating that would counter the cost of reading rx_q->dirty_rx. I
> suspect, however, that the cost is minimal, as cur_tx and dirty_rx are
> likely in the same cache line.
>
> It looks like any fix to stmmac_rx() will also need a corresponding
> fix for stmmac_rx_zc().

I have some further information, but a new curveball has just been
chucked... and I've no idea what this will mean at this stage. Just
take it that I won't be responding for a while.