[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0be971d-c03e-abcb-83fd-d0b087e38780@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 17:58:16 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com,
edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: select proper size for bpf_prog_pack
On 3/4/22 7:43 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> Using HPAGE_PMD_SIZE as the size for bpf_prog_pack is not ideal in some
> cases. Specifically, for NUMA systems, __vmalloc_node_range requires
> PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes() to allocate huge pages. Also, if the system
> does not support huge pages (i.e., with cmdline option nohugevmalloc), it
> is better to use PAGE_SIZE packs.
>
> Add logic to select proper size for bpf_prog_pack. This solution is not
> ideal, as it makes assumption about the behavior of module_alloc and
> __vmalloc_node_range. However, it appears to be the easiest solution as
> it doesn't require changes in module_alloc and vmalloc code.
>
nit: Fixes tag?
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
[...]
>
> +static size_t bpf_prog_pack_size = -1;
> +
> +static inline int bpf_prog_chunk_count(void)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(bpf_prog_pack_size == -1);
> + return bpf_prog_pack_size / BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE;
> +}
> +
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(pack_mutex);
> static LIST_HEAD(pack_list);
>
> static struct bpf_prog_pack *alloc_new_pack(void)
> {
> struct bpf_prog_pack *pack;
> + size_t size;
> + void *ptr;
>
> - pack = kzalloc(sizeof(*pack) + BITS_TO_BYTES(BPF_PROG_CHUNK_COUNT), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!pack)
> + if (bpf_prog_pack_size == -1) {
> + /* Test whether we can get huge pages. If not just use
> + * PAGE_SIZE packs.
> + */
> + size = PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes();
> + ptr = module_alloc(size);
> + if (ptr && is_vm_area_hugepages(ptr)) {
> + bpf_prog_pack_size = size;
> + goto got_ptr;
> + } else {
> + bpf_prog_pack_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> + vfree(ptr);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ptr = module_alloc(bpf_prog_pack_size);
> + if (!ptr)
> return NULL;
> - pack->ptr = module_alloc(BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE);
> - if (!pack->ptr) {
> - kfree(pack);
> +got_ptr:
> + pack = kzalloc(struct_size(pack, bitmap, BITS_TO_LONGS(bpf_prog_chunk_count())),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pack) {
> + vfree(ptr);
> return NULL;
> }
> - bitmap_zero(pack->bitmap, BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE / BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE);
> + pack->ptr = ptr;
> + bitmap_zero(pack->bitmap, bpf_prog_pack_size / BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE);
> list_add_tail(&pack->list, &pack_list);
>
> set_vm_flush_reset_perms(pack->ptr);
> - set_memory_ro((unsigned long)pack->ptr, BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE);
> - set_memory_x((unsigned long)pack->ptr, BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE);
> + set_memory_ro((unsigned long)pack->ptr, bpf_prog_pack_size / PAGE_SIZE);
> + set_memory_x((unsigned long)pack->ptr, bpf_prog_pack_size / PAGE_SIZE);
> return pack;
> }
>
> @@ -864,7 +886,7 @@ static void *bpf_prog_pack_alloc(u32 size)
> unsigned long pos;
> void *ptr = NULL;
>
> - if (size > BPF_PROG_MAX_PACK_PROG_SIZE) {
> + if (size > bpf_prog_pack_size) {
> size = round_up(size, PAGE_SIZE);
> ptr = module_alloc(size);
> if (ptr) {
What happens if the /very first/ program requests an allocation size of >PAGE_SIZE? Wouldn't
this result in OOB write?
The 'size > bpf_prog_pack_size' is initially skipped due to -1 but then the module_alloc()
won't return a huge page, so we redo the allocation with bpf_prog_pack_size as PAGE_SIZE and
return a pointer into this pack?
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists