Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:06:33 +0800
From:   Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
To:     Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next] bpf: avoid hashtab deadlock with try_lock

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:32 PM Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 11/29/2022 5:55 AM, Hao Luo wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:15 PM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > Hi Tonghao,
> >
> > With a quick look at the htab_lock_bucket() and your problem
> > statement, I agree with Hou Tao that using hash &
> > min(HASHTAB_MAP_LOCK_MASK, n_bucket - 1) to index in map_locked seems
> > to fix the potential deadlock. Can you actually send your changes as
> > v2 so we can take a look and better help you? Also, can you explain
> > your solution in your commit message? Right now, your commit message
> > has only a problem statement and is not very clear. Please include
> > more details on what you do to fix the issue.
> >
> > Hao
> It would be better if the test case below can be rewritten as a bpf selftests.
> Please see comments below on how to improve it and reproduce the deadlock.
> >
> >> Hi
> >> only a warning from lockdep.
> Thanks for your details instruction.  I can reproduce the warning by using your
> setup. I am not a lockdep expert, it seems that fixing such warning needs to set
> different lockdep class to the different bucket. Because we use map_locked to
> protect the acquisition of bucket lock, so I think we can define  lock_class_key
> array in bpf_htab (e.g., lockdep_key[HASHTAB_MAP_LOCK_COUNT]) and initialize the
> bucket lock accordingly.
Hi
Thanks for your reply. define the lock_class_key array looks good.
Last question: how about using  raw_spin_trylock_irqsave, if the
bucket is locked on the same or other cpu.
raw_spin_trylock_irqsave will return the false, we should return the
-EBUSY in htab_lock_bucket.

static inline int htab_lock_bucket(struct bucket *b,
                                   unsigned long *pflags)
{
        unsigned long flags;

        if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&b->raw_lock, flags))
                return -EBUSY;

        *pflags = flags;
        return 0;
}

> >> 1. the kernel .config
> >> #
> >> # Debug Oops, Lockups and Hangs
> >> #
> >> CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS=y
> >> CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS_VALUE=1
> >> CONFIG_PANIC_TIMEOUT=0
> >> CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
> >> CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
> >> # CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC is not set
> >> CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF=y
> >> CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_CHECK_TIMESTAMP=y
> >> CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
> >> CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HARDLOCKUP_PANIC=y
> >> CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK=y
> >> CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=120
> >> # CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HUNG_TASK_PANIC is not set
> >> # CONFIG_WQ_WATCHDOG is not set
> >> # CONFIG_TEST_LOCKUP is not set
> >> # end of Debug Oops, Lockups and Hangs
> >>
> >> 2. bpf.c, the map size is 2.
> >> struct {
> >> __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
> Adding __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_ZERO_SEED); to ensure there will be no seed for
> hash calculation, so we can use key=4 and key=20 to construct the case that
> these two keys have the same bucket index but have different map_locked index.
> >> __uint(max_entries, 2);
> >> __uint(key_size, sizeof(unsigned int));
> >> __uint(value_size, sizeof(unsigned int));
> >> } map1 SEC(".maps");
> >>
> >> static int bpf_update_data()
> >> {
> >> unsigned int val = 1, key = 0;
> key = 20
> >>
> >> return bpf_map_update_elem(&map1, &key, &val, BPF_ANY);
> >> }
> >>
> >> SEC("kprobe/ip_rcv")
> >> int bpf_prog1(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> bpf_update_data();
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> kprobe on ip_rcv is unnecessary, you can just remove it.
> >>
> >> SEC("tracepoint/nmi/nmi_handler")
> >> int bpf_prog2(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> bpf_update_data();
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> Please use SEC("fentry/nmi_handle") instead of SEC("tracepoint") and unfold
> bpf_update_data(), because the running of bpf program on tracepoint will be
> blocked by bpf_prog_active which will be increased bpf_map_update_elem through
> bpf_disable_instrumentation().
> >>
> >> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> >> unsigned int _version SEC("version") = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
> >>
> >> 3. bpf loader.
> >> #include "kprobe-example.skel.h"
> >>
> >> #include <unistd.h>
> >> #include <errno.h>
> >>
> >> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> struct kprobe_example *skel;
> >> int map_fd, prog_fd;
> >> int i;
> >> int err = 0;
> >>
> >> skel = kprobe_example__open_and_load();
> >> if (!skel)
> >> return -1;
> >>
> >> err = kprobe_example__attach(skel);
> >> if (err)
> >> goto cleanup;
> >>
> >> /* all libbpf APIs are usable */
> >> prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.bpf_prog1);
> >> map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.map1);
> >>
> >> printf("map_fd: %d\n", map_fd);
> >>
> >> unsigned int val = 0, key = 0;
> >>
> >> while (1) {
> >> bpf_map_delete_elem(map_fd, &key);
> No needed neither. Only do bpf_map_update_elem() is OK. Also change key=0 from
> key=4, so it will have the same bucket index as key=20 but have different
> map_locked index.
> >> bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &key, &val, BPF_ANY);
> >> }
> Also need to pin the process on a specific CPU (e.g., CPU 0)
> >>
> >> cleanup:
> >> kprobe_example__destroy(skel);
> >> return err;
> >> }
> >>
> >> 4. run the bpf loader and perf record for nmi interrupts.  the warming occurs
> For perf event, you can reference prog_tests/find_vma.c on how to using
> perf_event_open to trigger a perf nmi interrupt. The perf event also needs to
> pin on a specific CPU as the caller of bpf_map_update_elem() does.
>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards, Tonghao
> > .
>


-- 
Best regards, Tonghao

Powered by blists - more mailing lists