On 8/12/26 13:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 9:54 PM Mina Almasry <[email protected]> wrote:

Protect tcp_sendmsg_locked() from mistakenly appending non-zerocopy
page fragments to unreadable devmem skbs. Create a new segment instead.

Fixes: bd61848900bff ("net: devmem: Implement TX path")
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
Cc: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <[email protected]>
---
  net/ipv4/tcp.c | 5 +++++
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index 455441f1b6949..186a36c698798 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -1278,6 +1278,11 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
*msg, size_t size)
                 if (copy > msg_data_left(msg))
                         copy = msg_data_left(msg);

+               if (zc != MSG_ZEROCOPY && unlikely(!skb_frags_readable(skb))) {

This seems wrong, as @binding could be NULL or not ?

I'd say it is *supposed* to be null as device memory without zero
copy doesn't make sense, but it looks like that can happen if there
is no NETIF_F_SG. How about rejecting it? It'd EFAULT somewhere in
skb_copy_to_page_nocache() anyway.

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index 455441f1b694..f403830af65f 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -1162,6 +1162,10 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr 
*msg, size_t size)
                                        binding = NULL;
                                        goto out_err;
                                }
+                               if (zc != MSG_ZEROCOPY) {
+                                       err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+                                       goto out_err;
+                               }
                        }
                }
        } else if (unlikely(msg->msg_flags & MSG_SPLICE_PAGES) && size) {


Also testing the condition right after a fresh skb was allocated is
adding unecessary cost.

FWIW, we can even remove all extra overhead with a new SKBFL flag and
checking it together with likes of skb_zcopy_pure(), but IMHO it's
better to be done on top if needed.

--
Pavel Begunkov

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to