netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Remove redundant synchronize

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: <CAEf4BzYjFUJq9ODZgHx6XpoE7JXGrkKqMpaARs7wshxCrU0daw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 20:31:32 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Remove redundant synchronize_rcu.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:08:48PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:35 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > bpf_free_used_maps() or close(map_fd) will trigger map_free callback.
> > > > bpf_free_used_maps() is called after bpf prog is no longer executing:
> > > > bpf_prog_put->call_rcu->bpf_prog_free->bpf_free_used_maps.
> > > > Hence there is no need to call synchronize_rcu() to protect map elements.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Seems correct. And nice that maps don't have to care about this anymore.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, what about the map-in-map case?
> >
> > What if you had an array-of-maps with an inner map element. It is the
> > last reference to that map. Now you have two BPF prog executions in
> > parallel. One looked up that inner map and is updating it at the
> > moment. Another execution at the same time deletes that map. That
> > deletion will call bpf_map_put(), which without synchronize_rcu() will
> > free memory. All the while the former BPF program execution is still
> > working with that map.
>
> The delete of that inner map can only be done via sys_bpf() and there
> we do maybe_wait_bpf_programs() exactly to avoid this kind of problems.
> It's also necessary for user space. When the user is doing map_update/delete
> of inner map as soon as syscall returns the user can process
> old map with guarantees that no bpf prog is touching inner map.

Ah, that's what I missed. I also constantly forget that map-in-map
can't be updated from BPF side. Thanks!