public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead•org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail•com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel•org>,
	davem@davemloft•net, daniel@iogearbox•net,
	jakub.kicinski@netronome•com, netdev@vger•kernel.org,
	kernel-team@fb•com, mingo@redhat•com, will.deacon@arm•com,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux•vnet.ibm.com>,
	jannh@google•com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:43:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190128084310.GC28467@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190125234241.soomtkrgp2i7m7ul@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 03:42:43PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:10:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > What about the progs that run from SoftIRQ ? Since that bpf_prog_active
> > thing isn't inside BPF_PROG_RUN() what is to stop say:
> > 
> >    reuseport_select_sock()
> >      ...
> >        BPF_PROG_RUN()
> >          bpf_spin_lock()
> >         <IRQ>
> > 	  ...
> > 	  BPF_PROG_RUN()
> > 	    bpf_spin_lock() // forever more
> > 
> > 	</IRQ>
> > 
> > Unless you stick that bpf_prog_active stuff inside BPF_PROG_RUN itself,
> > I don't see how you can fundamentally avoid this happening (now or in
> > the future).

> But your issue above is valid.

> We don't use bpf_prog_active for networking progs, since we allow
> for one level of nesting due to the classic SKF_AD_PAY_OFFSET legacy.
> Also we allow tracing progs to nest with networking progs.
> People using this actively.
> Typically it's not an issue, since in networking there is no
> arbitrary nesting (unlike kprobe/nmi in tracing),
> but for bpf_spin_lock it can be, since the same map can be shared
> by networking and tracing progs and above deadlock would be possible:
> (first BPF_PROG_RUN will be from networking prog, then kprobe+bpf's
> BPF_PROG_RUN accessing the same map with bpf_spin_lock)
> 
> So for now I'm going to allow bpf_spin_lock in networking progs only,
> since there is no arbitrary nesting there.

Isn't that still broken? AFAIU networking progs can happen in task
context (TX) and SoftIRQ context (RX), which can nest.

> And once we figure out the safety concerns for kprobe/tracepoint progs
> we can enable bpf_spin_lock there too.
> NMI bpf progs will never have bpf_spin_lock.

kprobe is like NMI, since it pokes an INT3 instruction which can trigger
in the middle of IRQ-disabled or even in NMIs. Similar arguments can be
made for tracepoints, they can happen 'anywhere'.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-01-28  8:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-24  4:13 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/9] introduce bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 18:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 18:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 23:42       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  0:05         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  1:22           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  1:46             ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:38               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:27                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:31                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:47                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 16:02                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:11               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 16:18                 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 22:51                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 23:44                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-26  0:43                       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-26  0:59                         ` Jann Horn
2019-01-24 23:58     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  0:18       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:49         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:29       ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25  2:34         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:44           ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25  2:57             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  8:38               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25  9:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 23:42         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:31           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 20:49               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:43           ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-01-28 21:37             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  8:59               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:20                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  9:59       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:09       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-26  0:17         ` bpf memory model. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  9:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:56             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  9:16               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:32                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30  8:58                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 19:36                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 18:11               ` Will Deacon
2019-01-30 18:36                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:51                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 21:05                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 22:57                       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-31 14:01                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-31 18:47                           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-02-01 14:05                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:50                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: add support for bpf_spin_lock to cgroup local storage Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 3/9] tools/bpf: sync include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 4/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 5/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 6/9] bpf: introduce BPF_F_LOCK flag Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] tools/bpf: sync uapi/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov

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=20190128084310.GC28467@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead$(echo .)org \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=ast@kernel$(echo .)org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox$(echo .)net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome$(echo .)com \
    --cc=jannh@google$(echo .)com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb$(echo .)com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat$(echo .)com \
    --cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm$(echo .)com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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