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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:21:45 -0800 From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> CC: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>, "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>, "andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>, "john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>, "kpsingh@...omium.org" <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>, "haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:41:26PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 2021, at 10:56 AM, Martin Lau <kafai@...com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:19:47PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c > >> index dd5aedee99e73..9bd47ad2b26f1 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c > >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c > >> @@ -140,17 +140,18 @@ static void __bpf_selem_unlink_storage(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem) > >> { > >> struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage; > >> bool free_local_storage = false; > >> + unsigned long flags; > >> > >> if (unlikely(!selem_linked_to_storage(selem))) > >> /* selem has already been unlinked from sk */ > >> return; > >> > >> local_storage = rcu_dereference(selem->local_storage); > >> - raw_spin_lock_bh(&local_storage->lock); > >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&local_storage->lock, flags); > > It will be useful to have a few words in commit message on this change > > for future reference purpose. > > > > Please also remove the in_irq() check from bpf_sk_storage.c > > to avoid confusion in the future. It probably should > > be in a separate patch. > > Do you mean we allow bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing() and > bpf_sk_storage_delete_tracing() in irq context? Like Right. However, after another thought, may be lets skip that for now till a use case comes up and a test can be written.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists