From: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>

[ Upstream commit 96e97bc07e90f175a8980a22827faf702ca4cb30 ]

napi_disable() makes sure to set the NAPI_STATE_NPSVC bit to prevent
netpoll from accessing rings before init is complete. However, the
same is not done for fresh napi instances in netif_napi_add(),
even though we expect NAPI instances to be added as disabled.

This causes crashes during driver reconfiguration (enabling XDP,
changing the channel count) - if there is any printk() after
netif_napi_add() but before napi_enable().

To ensure memory ordering is correct we need to use RCU accessors.

Reported-by: Rob Sherwood <rs...@fb.com>
Fixes: 2d8bff12699a ("netpoll: Close race condition between poll_one_napi and 
napi_disable")
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 net/core/dev.c     |    3 ++-
 net/core/netpoll.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -6231,12 +6231,13 @@ void netif_napi_add(struct net_device *d
                netdev_err_once(dev, "%s() called with weight %d\n", __func__,
                                weight);
        napi->weight = weight;
-       list_add(&napi->dev_list, &dev->napi_list);
        napi->dev = dev;
 #ifdef CONFIG_NETPOLL
        napi->poll_owner = -1;
 #endif
        set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, &napi->state);
+       set_bit(NAPI_STATE_NPSVC, &napi->state);
+       list_add_rcu(&napi->dev_list, &dev->napi_list);
        napi_hash_add(napi);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(netif_napi_add);
--- a/net/core/netpoll.c
+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void poll_napi(struct net_device
        struct napi_struct *napi;
        int cpu = smp_processor_id();
 
-       list_for_each_entry(napi, &dev->napi_list, dev_list) {
+       list_for_each_entry_rcu(napi, &dev->napi_list, dev_list) {
                if (cmpxchg(&napi->poll_owner, -1, cpu) == -1) {
                        poll_one_napi(napi);
                        smp_store_release(&napi->poll_owner, -1);


Reply via email to