[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <272de0e9-539c-4d89-9b9c-0652b0826cdd@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:46:48 +0800
From: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH bpf-next v6 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add tests for
open-coded task and css iter
在 2023/10/20 08:03, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:18 PM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +SEC("?fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
>> +__failure __msg("css_task_iter is only allowed in bpf_lsm and bpf iter-s")
>> +int BPF_PROG(iter_css_task_for_each)
>> +{
>> + u64 cg_id = bpf_get_current_cgroup_id();
>> + struct cgroup *cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(cg_id);
>> + struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> + struct task_struct *task;
>> +
>> + if (cgrp == NULL)
>> + return 0;
>> + css = &cgrp->self;
>> +
>> + bpf_for_each(css_task, task, css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS) {
>> +
>> + }
>> + bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> I think we should relax allowlist in patch 2 further.
> Any sleepable is safe.
> Allowlist is needed to avoid dead locking on css_set_lock.
> Any lsm and any iter (even non-sleepable) and any sleepable
> seems to be safe.
Yes, I just try to read the corresponding code. IIUC, the key point here
is we should not hold the css_set_lock before we invoking a BPF Prog
which may use css_task iters.
1. For lsm hooks and task_iters, it would be clearly know from the code
that we would not try to hold that lock.
2. For cgroup_iters, we will hold the cgroup_muetx before we enter the
Prog and it's OK.(see __cgroup_procs_write())
3. For any sleepable progs, bpf_check_attach_target() would only allow
them to attach some sepecifc hooks, currently, these hooks are OK.
Thanks for the suggestion again! I would do it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists