[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A6645DA7-41B1-431E-8C5F-1CDAC1445242@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:49:32 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/6] bpf: prevent deadlock from recursive
bpf_task_storage_[get|delete]
> On Feb 23, 2021, at 3:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 05:20:10PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>> BPF helpers bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] could hold two locks:
>> bpf_local_storage_map_bucket->lock and bpf_local_storage->lock. Calling
>> these helpers from fentry/fexit programs on functions in bpf_*_storage.c
>> may cause deadlock on either locks.
>>
>> Prevent such deadlock with a per cpu counter, bpf_task_storage_busy, which
>> is similar to bpf_prog_active. We need this counter to be global, because
>
> So bpf_prog_active is one of the biggest turds around, and now you're
> making it worse ?!
bpf_prog_active is a distraction here. We are trying to enable task local
storage for fentry/fext programs, which do not use bpf_prog_active.
bpf_task_storage_busy counter is introduced to protect against a specific
pattern of deadlocks (attaching fentry/fexit on bpf_task_storage_[get|delete]
helpers, then let the programs call these two helpers again).
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists