Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, sockmap: Add sk_rmem_alloc check for tcp_bpf_ingress()

From: Jakub Sitnicki <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:37:18 +0100

Hello,

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:42 PM +08, Wang Yufen wrote:
> We use sk_msg to redirect with sock hash, like this:
>
>   skA   redirect    skB
>   Tx <----------->  Rx
>
> And construct a scenario where the packet sending speed is high, the
> packet receiving speed is slow, so the packets are stacked in the ingress
> queue on the receiving side. After a period of time, the memory is
> exhausted and the system ooms.
>
> To fix, we add sk_rmem_alloc while sk_msg queued in the ingress queue
> and subtract sk_rmem_alloc while sk_msg dequeued from the ingress queue
> and check sk_rmem_alloc at the beginning of bpf_tcp_ingress().
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  include/linux/skmsg.h | 9 ++++++---
>  net/core/skmsg.c      | 2 ++
>  net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c    | 6 ++++++
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> index c5a2d6f50f25..d2cfd5fa2274 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> @@ -308,9 +308,10 @@ static inline void sk_psock_queue_msg(struct sk_psock *psock,
>  				      struct sk_msg *msg)
>  {
>  	spin_lock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
> -	if (sk_psock_test_state(psock, SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED))
> +	if (sk_psock_test_state(psock, SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED)) {
>  		list_add_tail(&msg->list, &psock->ingress_msg);
> -	else {
> +		atomic_add(msg->sg.size, &psock->sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
> +	} else {
>  		sk_msg_free(psock->sk, msg);
>  		kfree(msg);
>  	}
> @@ -323,8 +324,10 @@ static inline struct sk_msg *sk_psock_dequeue_msg(struct sk_psock *psock)
>  
>  	spin_lock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
>  	msg = list_first_entry_or_null(&psock->ingress_msg, struct sk_msg, list);
> -	if (msg)
> +	if (msg) {
>  		list_del(&msg->list);
> +		atomic_sub(msg->sg.size, &psock->sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
> +	}
>  	spin_unlock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
>  	return msg;
>  }
> diff --git a/net/core/skmsg.c b/net/core/skmsg.c
> index cc381165ea08..b19a3c49564f 100644
> --- a/net/core/skmsg.c
> +++ b/net/core/skmsg.c
> @@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ int sk_msg_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock, struct msghdr *msg,
>  				if (!msg_rx->skb)
>  					sk_mem_uncharge(sk, copy);
>  				msg_rx->sg.size -= copy;
> +				atomic_sub(copy, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
>  
>  				if (!sge->length) {
>  					sk_msg_iter_var_next(i);
> @@ -754,6 +755,7 @@ static void __sk_psock_purge_ingress_msg(struct sk_psock *psock)
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(msg, tmp, &psock->ingress_msg, list) {
>  		list_del(&msg->list);
> +		atomic_sub(msg->sg.size, &psock->sk->sk_rmem_alloc);
>  		sk_msg_free(psock->sk, msg);
>  		kfree(msg);
>  	}
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> index 1cdcb4df0eb7..dd099875414c 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ static int bpf_tcp_ingress(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	lock_sock(sk);
> +	if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) > sk->sk_rcvbuf) {
> +		release_sock(sk);
> +		kfree(tmp);
> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +	}
> +
>  	tmp->sg.start = msg->sg.start;
>  	i = msg->sg.start;
>  	do {

Thanks for the patch and sorry for the delay.

I have to dig deeper to understand what you are experiencing.

1/ We can't charge rmem in sk_psock_queue_msg(). This path is shared by
redirect from sendmsg and redirect from ingress. When redirecting
psock->ingress_skb, we already charge sk_rmem_alloc in
sk_psock_skb_ingress() by transferring the skb ownership. See
sk_set_owner_r().

2/ The psock->ingress_msg build up for a slow reader should not lead to
be unbounded if memcg limits are in place. We charge
sk->sk_forward_alloc for received bytes in bpf_tcp_ingress(). I'd expect
the receiver process to get killed due to OOM, if it's running under a
dedicated cgroup. Is it the so in your case?

I'm pretty sure, though, that we have an accounting bug in
bpf_tcp_ingress(), because we are asking there for more write buffers
call - sk_wmem_schedule() - instead of read buffers
(sk_rmem_schedule()).

3/ I'm a bit surprised that you are not getting -ENOMEM from
bpf_tcp_ingress() already today, when the receive side allocates more
than what the net.ipv4.tcp_wmem hard limit is. (_wmem instead of _rmem
because of the bug I've mentioned above.) I'd expect we would be failing
in __sk_mem_raise_allocated().

Could you please check if you are not hitting the sock_exceed_buf_limit
tracepoint to confirm?

$ sudo bpftrace -lv 'tracepoint:sock:sock_exceed_buf_limit'
tracepoint:sock:sock_exceed_buf_limit
    char name[32]
    long * sysctl_mem
    long allocated
    int sysctl_rmem
    int rmem_alloc
    int sysctl_wmem
    int wmem_alloc
    int wmem_queued
    int kind

Thanks,
Jakub