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  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:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:47:02 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong@...edance.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] lwt: disable BH too in run_lwt_bpf()

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:29:53 -0800 Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue,  1 Dec 2020 11:44:38 -0800 Cong Wang wrote:  
> > > From: Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong@...edance.com>
> > >
> > > The per-cpu bpf_redirect_info is shared among all skb_do_redirect()
> > > and BPF redirect helpers. Callers on RX path are all in BH context,
> > > disabling preemption is not sufficient to prevent BH interruption.
> > >
> > > In production, we observed strange packet drops because of the race
> > > condition between LWT xmit and TC ingress, and we verified this issue
> > > is fixed after we disable BH.
> > >
> > > Although this bug was technically introduced from the beginning, that
> > > is commit 3a0af8fd61f9 ("bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel infrastructure"),
> > > at that time call_rcu() had to be call_rcu_bh() to match the RCU context.
> > > So this patch may not work well before RCU flavor consolidation has been
> > > completed around v5.0.
> > >
> > > Update the comments above the code too, as call_rcu() is now BH friendly.
> > >
> > > Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
> > > Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org
> > > Reviewed-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong@...edance.com>
> > > ---
> > >  net/core/lwt_bpf.c | 8 ++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/lwt_bpf.c b/net/core/lwt_bpf.c
> > > index 7d3438215f32..4f3cb7c15ddf 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/lwt_bpf.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/lwt_bpf.c
> > > @@ -39,12 +39,11 @@ static int run_lwt_bpf(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bpf_lwt_prog *lwt,
> > >  {
> > >       int ret;
> > >
> > > -     /* Preempt disable is needed to protect per-cpu redirect_info between
> > > -      * BPF prog and skb_do_redirect(). The call_rcu in bpf_prog_put() and
> > > -      * access to maps strictly require a rcu_read_lock() for protection,
> > > -      * mixing with BH RCU lock doesn't work.
> > > +     /* Preempt disable and BH disable are needed to protect per-cpu
> > > +      * redirect_info between BPF prog and skb_do_redirect().
> > >        */
> > >       preempt_disable();
> > > +     local_bh_disable();  
> >
> > Why not remove the preempt_disable()? Disabling BH must also disable
> > preemption AFAIK.  
> 
> It seems RT kernel still needs preempt disable:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3710124.html
> but my RT knowledge is not sufficient to tell. So I just follow the
> same pattern
> in x86 FPU (as of today):
> 
> static inline void fpregs_lock(void)
> {
>         preempt_disable();
>         local_bh_disable();
> }
> 
> static inline void fpregs_unlock(void)
> {
>         local_bh_enable();
>         preempt_enable();
> }
> 
> There are other similar patterns in the current code base, so if this
> needs a clean up, RT people can clean up them all together.

I see. GTK.

The patch seem good but it's probably best suited to the bpf tree, let
me reassign it in patchwork.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists