netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: fix lockdep false positive in stackmap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190206033001.bkyliw2j3tnxzc3j@ast-mbp>
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:30:03 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        daniel@...earbox.net, edumazet@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, songliubraving@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: fix lockdep false positive in stackmap

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:21:08PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> >>> index d43b145..79eef9d 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> >>> @@ -338,6 +338,13 @@ static void stack_map_get_build_id_offset(struct
> >>> bpf_stack_
> >>>         } else {
> >>>                 work->sem = &current->mm->mmap_sem;
> >>>                 irq_work_queue(&work->irq_work);
> >>> +
> >>> +               /*
> >>> +                * The irq_work will release the mmap_sem with
> >>> +                * up_read_non_owner(). The rwsem_release() is called
> >>> +                * here to release the lock from lockdep's perspective.
> >>> +                */
> >>> +               rwsem_release(&current->mm->mmap_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> >> are you saying the above is enough coupled with up_read_non_owner?
> >> Looking at how amdgpu is using this api... I think they just use non_owner
> >> version when doing things from different task.
> >> So I don't think pairing non_owner with non_owner is strictly necessary.
> >> It seems fine to use down_read_trylock() with above rwsem_release() hack
> >> plus up_read_non_owner().
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> > The statement above is to clear the state for the lockdep so that it
> > knows that the task no longer owns the lock. Without doing that, there
> > is a possibility of some other kind of incorrect lockdep warning may be
> > produced because the code will still think the task hold a read-lock on
> > the mmap_sem. It is also possible no warning will be reported.
> > 
> > The bpf code is kind of special that it acquires the mmap_sem. Later on,
> > it either releases it itself (non-NMI) or request irq_work to release it
> > (NMI). So either, you use the _non_owner versions for both acquire and
> > release or fake the release like the code segment above.
> > 
> > Peter, please chime in if you have other suggestion.
> > 
> 
> Hi guys
> 
> What are the plans to address the issue then ?
> Latest net tree exhibits this trace :

Thanks for the reminder :)

I've been waiting for Peter's direction on this one.
Happy to fix it whichever way.

To recap:
Approach 1:
s/up_read/up_read_non_owner/ from irq_work + rwsem_release as Longman proposed.

Apporach 2:
introduce down_read_trylock_non_owner and pair it with up_read_non_owner
in both irq_work and normal.

My preference is 1. I think Longman's as well.