Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/4] xsk: drain continuation descs after overflow in xsk_build_skb()

From: Stanislav Fomichev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 07:54:29 -0700

On 05/16, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:41 PM Stanislav Fomichev
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/15, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 8:29 AM Stanislav Fomichev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 05/14, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 12:27 AM Stanislav Fomichev
> > > > > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 05/10, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Jason Xing <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a multi-buffer packet exceeds MAX_SKB_FRAGS and triggers -EOVERFLOW,
> > > > > > > only the current descriptor is released from the TX ring. The remaining
> > > > > > > continuation descriptors of the same packet stay in the ring. Since
> > > > > > > xs->skb is set to NULL after the drop, the TX loop picks up these
> > > > > > > leftover frags and misinterprets each one as the beginning of a new
> > > > > > > packet, corrupting the packet stream.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix this by adding a drain_cont flag to xdp_sock. When overflow occurs
> > > > > > > and the dropped descriptor has XDP_PKT_CONTD set, the flag is raised.
> > > > > > > The main TX loop in __xsk_generic_xmit() then handles continuation
> > > > > > > descriptors one at a time: each gets a normal CQ reservation (with
> > > > > > > backpressure), its address is submitted to the completion queue, and
> > > > > > > the descriptor is released from the TX ring. When the last fragment
> > > > > > > (without XDP_PKT_CONTD) is processed, the flag is cleared and the
> > > > > > > function returns -EOVERFLOW so the next call starts with a fresh
> > > > > > > budget for normal packets.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This reuses the existing CQ backpressure and budget mechanisms, so if
> > > > > > > the CQ is full the function returns -EAGAIN and userspace drains the
> > > > > > > CQ before retrying. Zero buffer leakage, zero packet stream corruption.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email-masked]/
> > > > > > > Fixes: cf24f5a5feea ("xsk: add support for AF_XDP multi-buffer on Tx path")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  include/net/xdp_sock.h |  1 +
> > > > > > >  net/xdp/xsk.c          | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/net/xdp_sock.h b/include/net/xdp_sock.h
> > > > > > > index 23e8861e8b25..1958d19d9925 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/net/xdp_sock.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/net/xdp_sock.h
> > > > > > > @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ struct xdp_sock {
> > > > > > >        * call of __xsk_generic_xmit().
> > > > > > >        */
> > > > > > >       struct sk_buff *skb;
> > > > > > > +     bool drain_cont;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >       struct list_head map_list;
> > > > > > >       /* Protects map_list */
> > > > > > > diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > > > > > index 3f1e590c855d..232dd7126905 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > > > > > > @@ -936,6 +936,8 @@ static struct sk_buff *xsk_build_skb(struct xdp_sock *xs,
> > > > > > >                       xs->tx->invalid_descs++;
> > > > > > >               }
> > > > > > >               xskq_cons_release(xs->tx);
> > > > > > > +             if (xp_mb_desc(desc))
> > > > > > > +                     xs->drain_cont = true;
> > > > > > >       } else {
> > > > > > >               /* Let application retry */
> > > > > > >               xsk_cq_cancel_locked(xs->pool, 1);
> > > > > > > @@ -982,6 +984,26 @@ static int __xsk_generic_xmit(struct sock *sk)
> > > > > > >                       goto out;
> > > > > > >               }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +             if (unlikely(xs->drain_cont)) {
> > > > > > > +                     unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > > +                     u32 idx;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +                     spin_lock_irqsave(&xs->pool->cq_prod_lock, flags);
> > > > > > > +                     idx = xskq_get_prod(xs->pool->cq);
> > > > > > > +                     xskq_prod_write_addr(xs->pool->cq, idx, desc.addr);
> > > > > > > +                     xskq_prod_submit_n(xs->pool->cq, 1);
> > > > > > > +                     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xs->pool->cq_prod_lock, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure I understand why you want this if you're still marking the desc
> > > > > > invalid.
> > > > >
> > > > > The key point is that as long as we read the desc from txq, the desc
> > > > > should be either put back to txq again or publish it in the cq (for
> > > > > application to keep track of this) at this point. Or else, the
> > > > > application will lose track of this desc, which breaks the whole
> > > > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, makes sense!
> > > >
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +                     xs->tx->invalid_descs++;
> > > > > > > +                     xskq_cons_release(xs->tx);
> > > > > > > +                     if (!xp_mb_desc(&desc)) {
> > > > > > > +                             xs->drain_cont = false;
> > > > > > > +                             err = -EOVERFLOW;
> > > > > > > +                             goto out;
> > > > > > > +                     }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also don't understand why you want to return -EOVERFLOW again? Why not
> > > > > > (quietly) swallow these invalid xp_mb_desc from the previous packet and move
> > > > > > on?
> > > > >
> > > > > This particular desc is really one of overflow cases, right? We should
> > > > > warn users to handle this with this error code.
> > > >
> > > > Right, but didn't we already return -EOVERFLOW to the user once?
> > > > The part where you set drain_count=true will -EOVERFLOW. Then this
> > > > remainder will also return -EOVERFLOW?
> > >
> > > Right, my intention is to alert users twice under this kind of
> > > circumstance. We silently drain the remaining portion of the skb the
> > > second time, which looks a bit strange, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But let's maybe step back, what's the expectation on the user
> > > > when we return -EOVERFLOW? In theory, the user can re-submit new
> > > > shorter packet (at the current prod index), right? And then your
> > > > !xp_mb_desc logic will break/swallow/-EOVERFLOW it?
> > >
> > > People would be aware of the skb that is too big to handle when
> > > receiving two times of overflow warning. To put it in a simpler way,
> > > the second time in xmit path only handling the remaining is enough, no
> > > more descs that belong to another skb should be taken care of.
> > >
> > > If the user is able to quickly react to this case, I think the whole
> > > skb should be re-put into the txq again instead of adding the
> > > remaining part. I'm not so sure if I interpret the "break" correctly
> > > here.
> >
> > Let's say the user puts a packet with too many descriptors. We find that
> > mid-way and return -EOVERFLOW. What is user supposed to do with that error?
> > In my mind, the user should drain TX ring completely and start posting
> > shorter packets. You seem to be trying to handle the case where the user
> > leaves the remainder of the previously EOVERFLOW'd packet in place, why?
> 
> Good point. I think now I understand what your opinion is here:
> diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> index 3b604776f09f..72d05a1fb0b5 100644
> --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> @@ -996,11 +996,8 @@ static int __xsk_generic_xmit(struct sock *sk)
> 
>                         xs->tx->invalid_descs++;
>                         xskq_cons_release(xs->tx);
> -                       if (!xp_mb_desc(&desc)) {
> +                       if (!xp_mb_desc(&desc))
>                                 xs->drain_cont = false;
> -                               err = -EOVERFLOW;
> -                               goto out;
> -                       }
>                         continue;
>                 }
> 
> Then as long as we have enough budget, we silently handle the whole
> big skb and then continue with the rest of the skbs in txq. Users will
> be alerted by the counter of invalid_descs. I think that is what
> you're asking, right?

Yes, this resolves one part. But the larger question still stands:
why do this tracking at all? Why can't we clarify in the documentation
that the user is responsible for flushing tx queue completely after
EOVERFLOW? What am I missing?