On 10/27/2026 9:13 AM, Paul Moses wrote: >> [Severity: Low] >> Does this description match the tree this patch applies to? > > It needs to be clear that it is affected by that commit. > >> [Severity: High] >> With this patch applied on its own, igc_request_tx_tstamp() still runs >> before igc_tso() and igc_tx_csum(). Can the same shared skb problem come >> up here? >> >> When a GSO skb with a cloned header (for example with a packet tap or tc >> mirred active) is hardware timestamped: >> >> igc_xmit_frame_ring() >> igc_request_tx_tstamp() >> tstamp->skb = skb_get(skb); >> igc_tso() >> skb_cow_head(skb, 0) >> __skb_cow() >> pskb_expand_head() >> BUG_ON(skb_shared(skb)); >> >> igc_tx_csum() can reach pskb_expand_head() the same way, through >> skb_checksum_help()->skb_ensure_writable(), on a cloned skb. >> >> The next patch in this series, "igc: prepare TSO and checksum offloads >> before TX timestamps", moves igc_tso() and igc_tx_csum() ahead of the >> timestamp reservation. That fixes this by the end of the series. Should >> the two patches be backported together, since this one alone leaves the >> TSO and checksum paths exposed? >> > > Yes, I maybe need to research how to properly denote this
Personally, I think its clear from the series context. Thanks, Jake
