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:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:38:38 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:     Jiri Olsa <>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Yonghong Song <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Song Liu <>, Hao Sun <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        bpf <>, Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        John Fastabend <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Yonghong Song <>, KP Singh <>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <>,
        Hao Luo <>,
        David Miller <>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        netdev <>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <>
Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_dispatcher_xdp

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:06:16AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:34:45PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 00:32:07 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > fwiw, these should not be necessary, Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst :
> > > 
> > >    [...] One example of non-obvious pairing is the XDP feature in networking,
> > >    which calls BPF programs from network-driver NAPI (softirq) context. BPF
> > >    relies heavily on RCU protection for its data structures, but because the
> > >    BPF program invocation happens entirely within a single local_bh_disable()
> > >    section in a NAPI poll cycle, this usage is safe. The reason that this usage
> > >    is safe is that readers can use anything that disables BH when updaters use
> > >    call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(). [...]
> > 
> > FWIW I sent a link to the thread to Paul and he confirmed 
> > the RCU will wait for just the BH.
> so IIUC we can omit the rcu_read_lock/unlock on bpf_prog_run_xdp side
> Paul,
> any thoughts on what we can use in here to synchronize bpf_dispatcher_change_prog
> with bpf_prog_run_xdp callers?
> with synchronize_rcu_tasks I'm getting splats like:
> synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude seems to work (patch below), but it also sounds special ;-)

It sounds like we are all talking past each other, leaving me no
choice but to supply a wall of text:

It is quite true that synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() will wait
for bh-disabled regions of code, just like synchronize_rcu()
and synchronize_rcu_tasks() will.  However, please note that
synchronize_rcu_tasks() never waits on any of the idle tasks.  So the
usual approach in tracing is to do both a synchronize_rcu_tasks() and
synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude().  One way of overlapping the resulting
pair of grace periods is to use synchronize_rcu_mult().

But none of these permit readers to sleep.  That is what
synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() is for, but unlike both
synchronize_rcu_tasks() and synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(),
you must explicitly mark the readers with rcu_read_lock_trace()
and rcu_read_unlock_trace().  This is used to protect sleepable
BPF programs.

Now, synchronize_rcu() will also wait on bh-disabled lines of code, with
the exception of such code in the exception path, way deep in the idle
loop, early in the CPU-online process, or late in the CPU-offline process.
You can recognize the first two categories of code by the noinstr tags
on the functions.

And yes, synchronize_rcu_rude() is quite special.  ;-)

Does this help, or am I simply adding to the confusion?

							Thanx, Paul

> thanks,
> jirka
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c b/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
> index c19719f48ce0..e6126f07e85b 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/dispatcher.c
> @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ static void bpf_dispatcher_update(struct bpf_dispatcher *d, int prev_num_progs)
>  	}
>  	__BPF_DISPATCHER_UPDATE(d, new ?: (void *)&bpf_dispatcher_nop_func);
> +	synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude();
>  	if (new)
>  		d->image_off = noff;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists