Re: [PATCH net-next v4] skb_expand_head() adjust skb->truesize incorrectly

On 9/2/21 10:13 AM, Vasily Averin wrote:

On 9/2/21 7:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

On 9/1/21 9:32 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

I think you missed netem case, in particular
skb_orphan_partial() which I already pointed out.

You can setup a stack of virtual devices (tunnels),
with a qdisc on them, before ip6_xmit() is finally called...

Socket might have been closed already.

To test your patch, you could force a skb_orphan_partial() at the beginning
of skb_expand_head() (extending code coverage)

To clarify :

It is ok to 'downgrade' an skb->destructor having a ref on sk->sk_wmem_alloc to
something owning a ref on sk->refcnt.

But the opposite operation (ref on sk->sk_refcnt -->  ref on sk->sk_wmem_alloc) is not safe.

Could you please explain in more details, since I stil have a completely opposite point of view?

Every sk referenced in skb have sk_wmem_alloc > 9 
It is assigned to 1 in sk_alloc and decremented right before last __sk_free(),
inside  both sk_free() sock_wfree() and __sock_wfree()

So it is safe to adjust skb->sk->sk_wmem_alloc, 
because alive skb keeps reference to alive sk and last one keeps sk_wmem_alloc > 0

So any destructor used sk->sk_refcnt will already have sk_wmem_alloc > 0, 
because last sock_put() calls sk_free().

However now I'm not sure in reversed direction.
skb_set_owner_w() check !sk_fullsock(sk) and call sock_hold(sk);
If sk->sk_refcnt can be 0 here (i.e. after execution of old destructor inside skb_orphan) 
-- it can be trigger pointed problem:
"refcount_add() will trigger a warning (panic under KASAN)".

Could you please explain where I'm wrong?

To clarify:
I'm agree it is unsafe  to call on alive skb:
skb_orphan(skb)
adjust(skb_>sk->sk_wmem_alloc)

becasue 2 reasone:
1) old destructor can decrease sk_vmem_alloc to zero and free sk
2) becasue old destructor if !sk_fullsock(sk) can call sock_out and release last sk->sk_refcnt reference.
  in this case sock_hold() will trigger warning.

1) can be handled, we can adjust(sk_wmem_alloc) before skb_orphan()
but I badly understand how to handle 2nd case.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin