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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 19:36:37 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 00/19] bpf: Make BPF and PREEMPT_RT co-exist

David Miller <> writes:

> From: Thomas Gleixner <>
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:39:17 +0100
>> This is a follow up to the initial patch series which David posted a
>> while ago:
>> which was (while non-functional on RT) a good starting point for further
>> investigations.
> This looks really good after a cursory review, thanks for doing this week.
> I was personally unaware of the pre-allocation rules for MAPs used by
> tracing et al.  And that definitely shapes how this should be handled.

Hmm. I just noticed that my analysis only holds for PERF events. But
that's broken on mainline already.

Assume the following simplified callchain:

       kmalloc() from regular non BPF context
         cache empty
           freelist empty
                tracepoint or kprobe
                          cache empty
                            freelist empty
                              lock(zone->lock);  <- DEADLOCK

So really, preallocation _must_ be enforced for all variants of
intrusive instrumentation. There is no if and but, it's simply mandatory
as all intrusive instrumentation has to follow the only sensible
principle: KISS = Keep It Safe and Simple.

The above is a perfectly valid scenario and works with perf and tracing,
so it has to work with BPF in the same safe way.

I might be missing some magic enforcement of that, but I got lost in the



Powered by blists - more mailing lists