Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: sch_taprio: do not requeue a deactivated qdisc
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Date: 2026-08-05 20:19:37
Also in:
lkml, stable
David Lee [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Kyle Zeng <redacted> Root qdisc replacement and deletion call dev_deactivate() without resetting the old qdisc. This marks the qdisc deactivated and waits for existing runs to finish, but leaves TAPRIO's private hrtimer active. advance_sched() can therefore requeue the old root after the final busy check, allowing a new run to overlap reset and destruction. Do not schedule TAPRIO after its root has been deactivated. Keep the test in the existing RCU read-side critical section so that it pairs with the synchronize_net() in dev_deactivate_many(): a callback which observes an active qdisc must finish before the final busy check, while a later callback observes the deactivated state and skips the requeue. Fixes: 5a781ccbd19e ("tc: Add support for configuring the taprio scheduler") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5.6-sol Codex:gpt-5.5-cyber Signed-off-by: Kyle Zeng <redacted> Co-developed-by: David Lee <redacted> Signed-off-by: David Lee <redacted> --- Bug found and triaged by OpenAI Security Research and validated by Trail of Bits. The supplied v7.2-rc3 trace contains a KASAN use-after-free. The reproducer did not trigger a sanitizer report in the current v7.2-rc5 campaign and can be shared if needed. net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c index 299234a5f..2cf76df43 100644 --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c@@ -990,7 +990,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart advance_sched(struct hrtimer *timer) hrtimer_set_expires(&q->advance_timer, end_time); rcu_read_lock(); - __netif_schedule(sch); + if (!test_bit(__QDISC_STATE_DEACTIVATED, &sch->state)) + __netif_schedule(sch); rcu_read_unlock();
I'll be the first one to admit that taprio is a weird one (that it keeps a timer around while it's running among others), but it looks to me that this check would make more sense inside __netif_schedule(). Let's see what others think. Cheers, -- Vinicius