Re: [PATCH v2] skb_expand_head() adjust skb->truesize incorrectly
From: Vasily Averin <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-30 18:37:13
Also in:
lkml
On 8/30/21 9:09 PM, Vasily Averin wrote:
On 8/30/21 7:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:quoted
On 8/29/21 5:59 AM, Vasily Averin wrote:quoted
Christoph Paasch reports [1] about incorrect skb->truesize after skb_expand_head() call in ip6_xmit. This may happen because of two reasons: - skb_set_owner_w() for newly cloned skb is called too early, before pskb_expand_head() where truesize is adjusted for (!skb-sk) case. - pskb_expand_head() does not adjust truesize in (skb->sk) case. In this case sk->sk_wmem_alloc should be adjusted too. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/8/20/1082@@ -1756,9 +1756,13 @@ int pskb_expand_head(struct sk_buff *skb, int nhead, int ntail, * For the moment, we really care of rx path, or * when skb is orphaned (not attached to a socket). */ - if (!skb->sk || skb->destructor == sock_edemux) - skb->truesize += size - osize; - + delta = size - osize; + if (!skb->sk || skb->destructor == sock_edemux) { + skb->truesize += delta; + } else if (update_truesize) {Unfortunately we can not always do this sk_wmem_alloc change here. Some skb have skb->sk set, but the 'reference on socket' is not through sk_wmem_allocCould you please provide some example? In past in all handeled cases we have cloned original skb and then unconditionally assigned skb sock_wfree destructor. Do you want to say that it worked correctly somehow? I expected if we set sock_wfree, we have guarantee that old skb adjusted sk_wmem_alloc. Am I wrong? Could you please point on such case?
However if it is true -- it is not enough to adjust sk_wmem_alloc for proper destructors, because another destructors may require to do something else. In this case I can check destructor first and clone skb before pskb_expand_head() call, like it was happen before.
quoted
It seems you need a helper to make sure skb->destructor is one of the destructors that use skb->truesize and sk->sk_wmem_alloc For instance, skb_orphan_partial() could have been used.Thank you, will investigate. Vasily Averin