netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: move rcu lock management out of BPF_PROG

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: <Ylcm/dfeU3AEYqlV@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:39:41 -0700
From:   sdf@...gle.com
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: move rcu lock management out of
 BPF_PROG_RUN routines

On 04/13, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:33 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>  
> wrote:
> >
> > Commit 7d08c2c91171 ("bpf: Refactor BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY family of macros
> > into functions") switched a bunch of BPF_PROG_RUN macros to inline
> > routines. This changed the semantic a bit. Due to arguments expansion
> > of macros, it used to be:
> >
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         array = rcu_dereference(cgrp->bpf.effective[atype]);
> >         ...
> >
> > Now, with with inline routines, we have:
> >         array_rcu = rcu_dereference(cgrp->bpf.effective[atype]);
> >         /* array_rcu can be kfree'd here */
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         array = rcu_dereference(array_rcu);
> >

> So subtle difference, wow...

> But this open-coding of rcu_read_lock() seems very unfortunate as
> well. Would making BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY back to a macro which only does
> rcu lock/unlock and grabs effective array and then calls static inline
> function be a viable solution?

> #define BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS(array_rcu, ctx, run_prog, ret_flags) \
>    ({
>        int ret;

>        rcu_read_lock();
>        ret =  
> __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS(rcu_dereference(array_rcu), ....);
>        rcu_read_unlock();
>        ret;
>    })


> where __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS is what
> BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS is today but with __rcu annotation dropped
> (and no internal rcu stuff)?

Yeah, that should work. But why do you think it's better to hide them?
I find those automatic rcu locks deep in the call stack a bit obscure
(when reasoning about sleepable vs non-sleepable contexts/bpf).

I, as the caller, know that the effective array is rcu-managed (it
has __rcu annotation) and it seems natural for me to grab rcu lock
while work with it; I might grab it for some other things like cgroup  
anyway.