[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49f8b98e-c717-c1c4-893d-cddccca3b887@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:52:14 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] flow_dissector: disable preemption around BPF calls
On 5/13/19 10:25 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:20:19AM -0700, 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:17 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:38:55AM -0700, 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller wrote:
>>>> Various things in eBPF really require us to disable preemption
>>>> before running an eBPF program.
>>>
>>> Is that true for all eBPF uses? I note that we don't disable preemption
>>> in the lib/test_bpf.c module, for example.
>>>
>>> If it's a general requirement, perhaps it's worth an assertion within
>>> BPF_PROG_RUN()?
>>
>> The assertion is already there :)
>>
>> This is how syzbot triggered the report.
>
> Ah! :)
>
> I also see I'm wrong about test_bpf.c, so sorry for the noise on both
> counts!
No worries, thanks for reviewing !
Powered by blists - more mailing lists