On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 13:46:39 +0200 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 27/03/2026 13:34, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:24:38PM -0700, Xiang Mei wrote: > >> br_mrp_start_test() and br_mrp_start_in_test() accept the user-supplied > >> interval value from netlink without validation. When interval is 0, > >> usecs_to_jiffies(0) yields 0, causing the delayed work > >> (br_mrp_test_work_expired / br_mrp_in_test_work_expired) to reschedule > >> itself with zero delay. This creates a tight loop on system_percpu_wq > >> that allocates and transmits MRP test frames at maximum rate, exhausting > >> all system memory and causing a kernel panic via OOM deadlock. > > > > I would suspect the primary outcome of this problem is high CPU consumption > > rather than memory exhaustion. Is there a reason to expect that > > the transmitted fames can't be consumed as fast as they are created? > > +1 > More so with CAP_NET_ADMIN you can cause all sorts of OOM and high-cpu usage > conditions. This is a configuration error and OOM doesn't lead to panic unless > instructed to. I don't think this is worth changing at all.
Then again if there's no practical use for 0 we should consider the risk of getting this sort of submission over and over again? Dunno..
