netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin

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: <20190125025659.netyncl6vvtbv6oj@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:57:00 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        daniel@...earbox.net, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...hat.com,
        will.deacon@....com, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        jannh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:44:20PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/24/2019 06:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:29:55PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/24/2019 03:58 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:01:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >>>> and from NMI ...
> >>>
> >>> progs are not preemptable and map syscall accessors have bpf_prog_active counters.
> >>> So nmi/kprobe progs will not be running when syscall is running.
> >>> Hence dead lock is not possible and irq_save is not needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Speaking of NMI, how pcpu_freelist_push() and pop() can actually work ?
> >>
> >> It seems bpf_get_stackid() can be called from NMI, and lockdep seems to complain loudly
> > 
> > it's a known false positive.
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756
> > and the same answer as before:
> > we're not going to penalize performance to shut up false positive.
> > 
> 
> As far as lockdep is concerned, I do not believe we care about performance.
> 
> How can we remove this false positive, so that lockdep stays alive even after running bpf  test_progs ?

Like do irq_save version when lockdep is on?
Sure. Let's do that.
That splat was bugging me for very long time.
I see it every single day when I run this test before applying patches.

> Let see if we understood this well.
> 
> 1. create perf event PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE:PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES
> 2. attach bpf probram to this event 
> 3. since that's a hw event, the bpf program is executed in NMI context
> 4. the bpf program calls bpf_get_stackid to record the trace in a bpf map
> 5. bpf_get_stackid calls pcpu_freelist_pop and pcpu_freelist_push from NMI
> 6. userspace calls sys_bpf(bpf_map_lookup_elem) which calls bpf_stackmap_copy which can call pcpu_freelist_push

argh. lookup cmd is missing __this_cpu_inc(bpf_prog_active); like update/delete do.
Will fix.

> It seems pcpu_freelist_pop and pcpu_freelist_push are not NMI safe,
> so what prevents bad things to happen ?

nmi checks for bpf_prog_active==0. See bpf_overflow_handler.