linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf/stackmap: fix A-A deadlock in bpf_get

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 20:12:59 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf/stackmap: fix A-A deadlock in
 bpf_get_stack()

Thanks Peter!

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 2:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:06:14PM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 10/10/19 10:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>>> All of stack_map_get_build_id_offset() is just disguisting games; I did
>>> tell you guys how to do lockless vma lookups a few years ago -- and yes,
>>> that is invasive core mm surgery. But this is just disguisting hacks for
>>> not wanting to do it right.
>> 
>> you mean speculative page fault stuff?
>> That was my hope as well and I offered Laurent all the help to land it.
>> Yet after a year since we've talked the patches are not any closer
>> to landing.
>> Any other 'invasive mm surgery' you have in mind?
> 
> Indeed that series. It had RCU managed VMAs and lockless VMA lookups,
> which is exactly what you need here.

Lockless VMA lookups will be really useful. It would resolve all the 
pains we are having here. 

I remember Google folks also mentioned in LPC that they would like 
better mechanism to confirm build-id in perf. 

> 
>>> Basically the only semi-sane thing to do with that trainwreck is
>>> s/in_nmi()/true/ and pray.
>>> 
>>> On top of that I just hate buildids in general.
>> 
>> Emotions aside... build_id is useful and used in production.
>> It's used widely because it solves real problems.
> 
> AFAIU it solves the problem of you not knowing what version of the
> binary runs where; which I was hoping your cloud infrastructure thing
> would actually know already.
> 
> Anyway, I know what it does, I just don't nessecarily agree it is the
> right way around that particular problem (also, the way I'm personally
> affected is that perf-record is dead slow by default due to built-id
> post processing).
> 
> And it obviously leads to horrible hacks like the code currently under
> discussion :/
> 
>> This dead lock is from real servers and not from some sanitizer wannabe.
> 
> If you enable CFS bandwidth control and run this function on the
> trace_hrtimer_start() tracepoint, you should be able to trigger a real
> AB-BA lockup.
> 
>> Hence we need to fix it as cleanly as possible and quickly.
>> s/in_nmi/true/ is certainly an option.
> 
> That is the best option; because tracepoints / perf-overflow handlers
> really should not be taking any locks.
> 
>> I'm worried about overhead of doing irq_work_queue() all the time.
>> But I'm not familiar with mechanism enough to justify the concerns.
>> Would it make sense to do s/in_nmi/irgs_disabled/ instead?
> 
> irqs_disabled() should work in this particular case because rq->lock
> (and therefore all it's nested locks) are IRQ-safe.

We worry about the overhead of irq_work for every single stackmap 
lookup. So we would like to go with the irqs_disabled() check. I just 
sent v2 of the patch. 

Thanks again,
Song