linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 12/22] rqspinlock: Add basic support for CONFIG

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: <7f1c3db7-a958-4bb5-b552-a20fb5b60a2e@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 21:58:46 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
 Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
 Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, "Paul E. McKenney"
 <paulmck@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
 Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
 Dohyun Kim <dohyunkim@...gle.com>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 12/22] rqspinlock: Add basic support for
 CONFIG_PARAVIRT

On 1/8/25 9:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 4:48 PM Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Is the intention to only replace raw_spinlock_t by rqspinlock but never
>> spinlock_t?
> Correct. We brainstormed whether we can introduce resilient mutex
> for sleepable context, but it's way out of scope and PI
> considerations are too complex to think through.
> rqspinlock is a spinning lock, so it's a replacement for raw_spin_lock
> and really only for bpf use cases.
Thank for the confirmation. I think we should document the fact that 
rqspinlock is a replacement for raw_spin_lock only in the rqspinlock.c 
file to prevent possible abuse in the future.
>
> We considered placing rqspinlock.c in kernel/bpf/ directory
> to discourage any other use beyond bpf,
> but decided to keep in kernel/locking/ only because
> it's using mcs_spinlock.h and qspinlock_stat.h
> and doing #include "../locking/mcs_spinlock.h"
> is kinda ugly.
>
> Patch 16 does:
> +++ b/kernel/locking/Makefile
> @@ -24,6 +24,9 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += spinlock.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_LOCK_SPIN_ON_OWNER) += osq_lock.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) += spinlock.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS) += qspinlock.o
> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL),y)
> +obj-$(CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS) += rqspinlock.o
> +endif
>
> so that should give enough of a hint that it's for bpf usage.
>
>> As for the locking semantics allowed by the BPF verifier, is it possible
>> to enforce the strict locking rules for PREEMPT_RT kernel and use the
>> relaxed semantics for non-PREEMPT_RT kernel. We don't want the loading
>> of an arbitrary BPF program to break the latency guarantee of a
>> PREEMPT_RT kernel.
> Not really.
> root can load silly bpf progs that take significant
> amount time without abusing spinlocks.
> Like 100k integer divides or a sequence of thousands of calls to map_update.
> Long runtime of broken progs is a known issue.
> We're working on a runtime termination check/watchdog that
> will detect long running progs and will terminate them.
> Safe termination is tricky, as you can imagine.

Right.

In that case, we just have to warn users that they can load BPF prog at 
their own risk and PREEMPT_RT kernel may break its latency guarantee.

Thanks,
Longman