From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F14952D6E5C; Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:31:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767889894; cv=none; b=J3swJQexdLlMlCFyvwwPXNYjIq9M8JzFQA30zr6LzZJD7K3n8R7y/qopaNEDdJoofFxYt8LG2MjuFr2k2sHy7GzsRGPV0k7q9nb0o0bExTg3Y2WmpdhUr8L13W6Eeu2jJmy/q4bgsaPI7LdB/Ag8dgyfKU+lIoxBD+QE0eciR6I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767889894; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OKbOz5X6AkPAnx8KYzWSY3erzfMgj/8GczL3yBWrCBY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dHlCdJnRfcMbZB8j25rWurqP5Vdjd5MLX8xc+yEDWzc7Xrfu3kwXvZMpWkJkMIt5RBIVoBuFHNWrNO/dxL/u+30++X5bucscegD/6lyrF62HmfoQqC/mlH0T2pk80GPAHhaKrLFGVPVH116/fsRpz63YzkQdwRE9nqyeVln5gyE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=b4dBgIzs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="b4dBgIzs" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9987BC116C6; Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:31:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767889893; bh=OKbOz5X6AkPAnx8KYzWSY3erzfMgj/8GczL3yBWrCBY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=b4dBgIzsoHiHUVQEH7RE+cisjoSymIAC32bzOZD1SbsMiI08Be9BPY3RvfCiKuYgc O8b2PJoCiZU7jgzF+3j7s34y/5xOwKN+QfGHDL5zUvuNod2ZMV8+Dru+zwbmvgOP+S qGNl7Y72Ucek6iGn0RXcNmPAD8E2U0218SRVgeax77C1c88jULsrTwYsrUE992a8Gj XEWxDO2Z1pAgE+JUGeliuAcLzhF5dACQeRuvqdzsNMl6d6OsMrOGksQPn11HKusMWS tHe5QbnVgrV8aXrcDxMN+8UuaEHf6eppjdcibTyJgqI1637XUOlrpNv9P0QJ3YGHd7 euGrtOFCD2mZw== Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:31:31 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Ankit Garg Cc: Joshua Washington , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Harshitha Ramamurthy , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Willem de Bruijn , Praveen Kaligineedi , Catherine Sullivan , Luigi Rizzo , Jon Olson , Sagi Shahar , Bailey Forrest , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] gve: fix crashes on invalid TX queue indices Message-ID: <20260108083131.6e090e86@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260105232504.3791806-1-joshwash@google.com> <20260106182244.7188a8f6@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 07:35:59 -0800 Ankit Garg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Jakub Kicinski w= rote: > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 15:25:02 -0800 Joshua Washington wrote: =20 > > > This series fixes a kernel panic in the GVE driver caused by > > > out-of-bounds array access when the network stack provides an invalid > > > TX queue index. =20 > > > > Do you know how? I seem to recall we had such issues due to bugs > > in the qdisc layer, most of which were fixed. > > > > Fixing this at the source, if possible, would be far preferable > > to sprinkling this condition to all the drivers. =20 >=20 > That matches our observation=E2=80=94we have encountered this panic on ol= der > kernels (specifically Rocky Linux 8) but have not been able to > reproduce it on recent upstream kernels. >=20 > Could you point us to the specific qdisc fixes you recall? We'd like > to verify if the issue we are seeing on the older kernel is indeed one > of those known/fixed bugs. Very old - ac5b70198adc25 > If it turns out this is fully resolved in the core network stack > upstream, we can drop this patch for the mainline driver. However, if > there is ambiguity, do you think there is value in keeping this check > to prevent the driver from crashing on invalid input? The API contract is that the stack does not send frames for queues which don't exist (> real_num_tx_queues) down to the drivers. There's no ambiguity, IMO, if the stack sends such frames its a bug in the stack.