netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable program stats

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]

Date:   Sat, 23 Feb 2019 10:36:48 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable program stats



On 02/23/2019 09:44 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

...

>  
> -#define BPF_PROG_RUN(filter, ctx)  ({ cant_sleep(); (*(filter)->bpf_func)(ctx, (filter)->insnsi); })
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> +
> +#define BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, ctx)	({				\
> +	u32 ret;						\
> +	cant_sleep();						\
> +	if (static_branch_unlikely(&bpf_stats_enabled_key)) {	\
> +		struct bpf_prog_stats *stats;			\
> +		u64 start = sched_clock();			\
> +		ret = (*(prog)->bpf_func)(ctx, (prog)->insnsi);	\
> +		stats = this_cpu_ptr(prog->aux->stats);		\
> +		u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);		\
> +		stats->cnt++;					\
> +		stats->nsecs += sched_clock() - start;		\
> +		u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);		\
> +	} else {						\
> +		ret = (*(prog)->bpf_func)(ctx, (prog)->insnsi);	\
> +	}							\
> +	ret; })
> 

It seems a cpu running there could still be interrupted (by an interrupt)
and re-enter this section ?

If yes, u64_stats_update_begin() and u64_stats_update_end() are unsafe (on 32bit arches)

u64_stats_update_{begin|end}() assume proper locking, since they use a simple increment.

But then, even on 64bit arches, the stats->{cnt|nsecs} updates are unsafe ?