From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] wireguard: queueing: always return valid online CPU in wg_cpumask_choose_online()
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 18:44:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250719224444.411074-3-yury.norov@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250719224444.411074-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
From: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
The function gets number of online CPUS, and uses it to search for
Nth cpu in cpu_online_mask.
If id == num_online_cpus() - 1, and one CPU gets offlined between
calling num_online_cpus() -> cpumask_nth(), there's a chance for
cpumask_nth() to find nothing and return >= nr_cpu_ids.
The caller code in __queue_work() tries to avoid that by checking the
returned CPU against WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, which is NR_CPUS. It's not the
same as '>= nr_cpu_ids'. On a typical Ubuntu desktop, NR_CPUS is 8192,
while nr_cpu_ids is the actual number of possible CPUs, say 8.
The non-existing cpu may later be passed to rcu_dereference() and
corrupt the logic. Fix it by switching from 'if' to 'while'.
Suggested-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
---
drivers/net/wireguard/queueing.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/queueing.h b/drivers/net/wireguard/queueing.h
index 56314f98b6ba..79b6d70de236 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireguard/queueing.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/queueing.h
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static inline int wg_cpumask_choose_online(int *stored_cpu, unsigned int id)
{
unsigned int cpu = *stored_cpu;
- if (unlikely(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu)))
+ while (unlikely(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu)))
cpu = *stored_cpu = cpumask_nth(id % num_online_cpus(), cpu_online_mask);
return cpu;
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-19 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-19 22:44 [PATCH v2 0/2] rework wg_cpumask_next_online() Yury Norov
2025-07-19 22:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] wireguard: queueing: simplify wg_cpumask_next_online() Yury Norov
2025-07-19 22:44 ` Yury Norov [this message]
2025-08-09 13:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] rework wg_cpumask_next_online() Yury Norov
2025-09-08 16:50 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250719224444.411074-3-yury.norov@gmail.com \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).