linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/18] bpf: wq: add bpf_wq

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <6zslg7atmsexqi3htt7auka3gvwx7pouxva4zsxv2pn5syun35@hgqunkasn2id>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:55:23 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/18] bpf: wq: add bpf_wq_init

On Apr 19 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's something I added while adding the tests. And some tests were passing
> > in case I was having a non sleepable callback. But if we have
> > bpf_rcu_read_lock(), we are all fine and can reduce the complexity.
> 
> Not quite following what was the issue.
> Since the verifier is unconditionally verifying such callback as sleepable
> the callback won't be able to access rcu pointers without doing
> explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock() first (and few other code patterns
> might be rejected), but that's a good thing.

Oh, I missed that. Well, given that the verifier enforces everything, I
guess we are good :)

> Maybe next to set_cb kfunc add a comment that wq callbacks are sleepable.
> I think bpf prog writers are often with kernel background,
> so it will be their natural assumption that cb is sleepable.

I assume so as well.

Cheers,
Benjamin