Re: [RFC] net: esp: fix bad handling of pages from page_pool

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:05:14 +0000 Dragos Tatulea wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 19:04 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:48:52 +0200 Dragos Tatulea wrote:  
> > > When the skb is reorganized during esp_output (!esp->inline), the pages
> > > coming from the original skb fragments are supposed to be released back
> > > to the system through put_page. But if the skb fragment pages are
> > > originating from a page_pool, calling put_page on them will trigger a
> > > page_pool leak which will eventually result in a crash.  
> > 
> > So it just does: skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags = 1;
> > and assumes that's equivalent to owning a page ref on all the frags?
> >   
> My understanding is different: it sets nr_frags to 1 because it's swapping out
> the old page frag in fragment 0 with the new xfrag page frag and will use this
> "new" skb from here. It does take a page reference for the xfrag page frag.

Same understanding, I'm just bad at explaining :)

> > Fix looks more or less good, we would need a new wrapper to avoid
> > build issues without PAGE_POOL, 
> >   
> Ack. Which component would be best location for this wrapper: page_pool?

Hm, that's a judgment call.
Part of me wants to put it next to napi_frag_unref(), since we
basically need to factor out the insides of this function.
When you post the patch the page pool crowd will give us
their opinions.

> > but I wonder if we wouldn't be better
> > off changing the other side. Instead of "cutting off" the frags -
> > walking them and dealing with various page types. Because Mina and co.
> > will step onto this landmine as well.  
> The page frags are still stored and used in the sg scatterlist. If we release
> them at the moment when the skb is "cut off", the pages in the sg will be
> invalid. At least that's my understanding.

I was thinking something along the lines of:

	for each frag()
		if (is_pp_page()) {
			get_page();
			page_pool_unref_page(1);
		}

so that it's trivial to insert another check for "is this a zero-copy"
page in there, and error our. But on reflection the zero copy check may
be better placed in __skb_to_sgvec(), so ignore this. Just respin
what you got with a new helper.