netdev - Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush instead of bulk enqueue

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]
Message-ID: <87k0p3i957.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:29:40 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Björn Töpel 
        <bjorn.topel@...il.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: run devmap xdp_prog on flush
 instead of bulk enqueue

Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:35:51 -0700
> Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:22:19AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> writes:
>> >   
>> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:  
>> > >> >  static void bq_xmit_all(struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq, u32 flags)
>> > >> >  {
>> > >> >  	struct net_device *dev = bq->dev;
>> > >> > -	int sent = 0, err = 0;
>> > >> > +	int sent = 0, drops = 0, err = 0;
>> > >> > +	unsigned int cnt = bq->count;
>> > >> > +	int to_send = cnt;
>> > >> >  	int i;
>> > >> >  
>> > >> > -	if (unlikely(!bq->count))
>> > >> > +	if (unlikely(!cnt))
>> > >> >  		return;
>> > >> >  
>> > >> > -	for (i = 0; i < bq->count; i++) {
>> > >> > +	for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
>> > >> >  		struct xdp_frame *xdpf = bq->q[i];
>> > >> >  
>> > >> >  		prefetch(xdpf);
>> > >> >  	}
>> > >> >  
>> > >> > -	sent = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp_xmit(dev, bq->count, bq->q, flags);
>> > >> > +	if (bq->xdp_prog) {  
>> > >> bq->xdp_prog is used here
>> > >>   
>> > >> > +		to_send = dev_map_bpf_prog_run(bq->xdp_prog, bq->q, cnt, dev);
>> > >> > +		if (!to_send)
>> > >> > +			goto out;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +		drops = cnt - to_send;
>> > >> > +	}
>> > >> > +  
>> > >> 
>> > >> [ ... ]
>> > >>   
>> > >> >  static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
>> > >> > -		       struct net_device *dev_rx)
>> > >> > +		       struct net_device *dev_rx, struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog)
>> > >> >  {
>> > >> >  	struct list_head *flush_list = this_cpu_ptr(&dev_flush_list);
>> > >> >  	struct xdp_dev_bulk_queue *bq = this_cpu_ptr(dev->xdp_bulkq);
>> > >> > @@ -412,18 +466,22 @@ static void bq_enqueue(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_frame *xdpf,
>> > >> >  	/* Ingress dev_rx will be the same for all xdp_frame's in
>> > >> >  	 * bulk_queue, because bq stored per-CPU and must be flushed
>> > >> >  	 * from net_device drivers NAPI func end.
>> > >> > +	 *
>> > >> > +	 * Do the same with xdp_prog and flush_list since these fields
>> > >> > +	 * are only ever modified together.
>> > >> >  	 */
>> > >> > -	if (!bq->dev_rx)
>> > >> > +	if (!bq->dev_rx) {
>> > >> >  		bq->dev_rx = dev_rx;
>> > >> > +		bq->xdp_prog = xdp_prog;  
>> > >> bp->xdp_prog is assigned here and could be used later in bq_xmit_all().
>> > >> How is bq->xdp_prog protected? Are they all under one rcu_read_lock()?
>> > >> It is not very obvious after taking a quick look at xdp_do_flush[_map].
>> > >> 
>> > >> e.g. what if the devmap elem gets deleted.  
>> > >
>> > > Jesper knows better than me. From my veiw, based on the description of
>> > > __dev_flush():
>> > >
>> > > On devmap tear down we ensure the flush list is empty before completing to
>> > > ensure all flush operations have completed. When drivers update the bpf
>> > > program they may need to ensure any flush ops are also complete.  
>>
>> AFAICT, the bq->xdp_prog is not from the dev. It is from a devmap's elem.
>> 
>> > 
>> > Yeah, drivers call xdp_do_flush() before exiting their NAPI poll loop,
>> > which also runs under one big rcu_read_lock(). So the storage in the
>> > bulk queue is quite temporary, it's just used for bulking to increase
>> > performance :)  
>>
>> I am missing the one big rcu_read_lock() part.  For example, in i40e_txrx.c,
>> i40e_run_xdp() has its own rcu_read_lock/unlock().  dst->xdp_prog used to run
>> in i40e_run_xdp() and it is fine.
>> 
>> In this patch, dst->xdp_prog is run outside of i40e_run_xdp() where the
>> rcu_read_unlock() has already done.  It is now run in xdp_do_flush_map().
>> or I missed the big rcu_read_lock() in i40e_napi_poll()?
>>
>> I do see the big rcu_read_lock() in mlx5e_napi_poll().
>
> I believed/assumed xdp_do_flush_map() was already protected under an
> rcu_read_lock.  As the devmap and cpumap, which get called via
> __dev_flush() and __cpu_map_flush(), have multiple RCU objects that we
> are operating on.
>
> Perhaps it is a bug in i40e?
>
> We are running in softirq in NAPI context, when xdp_do_flush_map() is
> call, which I think means that this CPU will not go-through a RCU grace
> period before we exit softirq, so in-practice it should be safe.

Yup, this seems to be correct: rcu_softirq_qs() is only called between
full invocations of the softirq handler, which for networking is
net_rx_action(), and so translates into full NAPI poll cycles.

-Toke