[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALOAHbDRSNvihv5n0jJpAsK3onezRRipO78RG3rAf3LGgkzYHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:23:31 +0800
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: Improve tracing recursion prevention mechanism
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:18 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:22:22 +0800
> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > IIUC, the acquire/release pair works as follows,
> >
> > test_recursion_try_acquire
> > [ protection area ]
> > test_recursion_release
> >
> > After release, there will be no protection, and thus it will fail the
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recursion.c[1] test case, because
> > the recursion occurs in the bpf_prog_run() itself,
>
> But bpf programs are allowed to recurs. Hence, you need separate logic to
> detect that. The test_recursion_*() code is for cases that are not allowed
> to recurs.
>
Agreed.
> >
> > __bpf_prog_enter
> > test_recursion_try_acquire
> > [...]
> > test_recursion_release
> > // no protection after the release
> > bpf_prog_run()
> > bpf_prog_run() // the recursion can't be prevented.
>
> But I thought you can run a bpf_prog from another bpf_prog. So you don't
> want to prevent it. You need other logic to detect if it was not suppose to
> recurs.
>
If so, we have to keep the prog->active to prevent it, then I'm not
sure if it is worth adding test_recursion_*().
--
Regards
Yafang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists