netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 2/2] bpf: xdp, remove no longer required rcu_read

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200114003158.GA6804@ranger.igk.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:31:58 +0100
From:   Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     bjorn.topel@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, toke@...hat.com,
        toshiaki.makita1@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 2/2] bpf: xdp, remove no longer required
 rcu_read_{un}lock()

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 07:25:51PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 06:37:42PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > Now that we depend on rcu_call() and synchronize_rcu() to also wait

one last thing since you'll be sending a v3, s/rcu_call/call_rcu.

> > > for preempt_disabled region to complete the rcu read critical section
> > > in __dev_map_flush() is no longer required. Except in a few special
> > > cases in drivers that need it for other reasons.
> > > 
> > > These originally ensured the map reference was safe while a map was
> > > also being free'd. And additionally that bpf program updates via
> > > ndo_bpf did not happen while flush updates were in flight. But flush
> > > by new rules can only be called from preempt-disabled NAPI context.
> > > The synchronize_rcu from the map free path and the rcu_call from the
> > > delete path will ensure the reference there is safe. So lets remove
> > > the rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock pair to avoid any confusion
> > > around how this is being protected.
> > > 
> > > If the rcu_read_lock was required it would mean errors in the above
> > > logic and the original patch would also be wrong.
> > > 
> > > Now that we have done above we put the rcu_read_lock in the driver
> > > code where it is needed in a driver dependent way. I think this
> > > helps readability of the code so we know where and why we are
> > > taking read locks. Most drivers will not need rcu_read_locks here
> > > and further XDP drivers already have rcu_read_locks in their code
> > > paths for reading xdp programs on RX side so this makes it symmetric
> > > where we don't have half of rcu critical sections define in driver
> > > and the other half in devmap.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 0536b85239b84 ("xdp: Simplify devmap cleanup")
> > > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> > > ---
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > index 4d7d5434..2c11f82 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > @@ -498,12 +498,16 @@ static int virtnet_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev,
> > >  	void *ptr;
> > >  	int i;
> > >  
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +
> > >  	/* Only allow ndo_xdp_xmit if XDP is loaded on dev, as this
> > >  	 * indicate XDP resources have been successfully allocated.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	xdp_prog = rcu_dereference(rq->xdp_prog);
> > 
> > We could convert that rcu_dereference to rcu_access_pointer so that we
> > don't need the rcu critical section here at all. Actually this was
> > suggested some time ago by David Ahern during the initial discussion
> > around this code. Not sure why we didn't change it.
> 
> Makes sense I'll send a v3 with a middle patch to do this and then drop
> this segment.

Great :)

> 
> > 
> > Veth is also checking the xdp prog presence and it is doing that via
> > rcu_access_pointer so such conversion would make it more common, no?
> 
> veth derefernces rcv netdevice and this accesses it. The logic to
> drop the rcu here is less obvious to me. At least I would have to
> study it closely.

Veth does two rcu derefs in the veth_xmit, one for netdev and one for
xdp_prog and I was referring to a xdp_prog deref which is done via
rcu_access_pointer. So yeah we need to keep the rcu section in there but I
was just making an argument for having the rcu_access_pointer on the
virtio_net side.

> 
> > 
> > xdp_prog is only check against NULL, so quoting the part of comment from
> > rcu_access_pointer:
> > "This is useful when the value of this pointer is accessed, but the pointer
> > is not dereferenced, for example, when testing an RCU-protected pointer
> > against NULL."
> 
> +1 thanks it does make the cleanup nicer.