netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 13/13] bpf: Convert bpf_cpumask to bpf_mem_cache_free

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: <20230626175538.GA6750@maniforge>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:55:38 -0500
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	rcu@...r.kernel.org, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 13/13] bpf: Convert bpf_cpumask to
 bpf_mem_cache_free_rcu.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:09:20AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM David Vernet <void@...ifault.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 08:13:33PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > Convert bpf_cpumask to bpf_mem_cache_free_rcu.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
> >
> > LGTM, thanks for cleaning this up. I left one drive-by comment /
> > observation below, but it's not a blocker for this patch / series.
> >
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/bpf/cpumask.c | 20 ++++++--------------
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > > index 938a60ff4295..6983af8e093c 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > > @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
> > >  /**
> > >   * struct bpf_cpumask - refcounted BPF cpumask wrapper structure
> > >   * @cpumask: The actual cpumask embedded in the struct.
> > > - * @rcu:     The RCU head used to free the cpumask with RCU safety.
> > >   * @usage:   Object reference counter. When the refcount goes to 0, the
> > >   *           memory is released back to the BPF allocator, which provides
> > >   *           RCU safety.
> > > @@ -25,7 +24,6 @@
> > >   */
> > >  struct bpf_cpumask {
> > >       cpumask_t cpumask;
> > > -     struct rcu_head rcu;
> > >       refcount_t usage;
> > >  };
> > >
> > > @@ -82,16 +80,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_cpumask *bpf_cpumask_acquire(struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> > >       return cpumask;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static void cpumask_free_cb(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > -{
> > > -     struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask;
> > > -
> > > -     cpumask = container_of(head, struct bpf_cpumask, rcu);
> > > -     migrate_disable();
> > > -     bpf_mem_cache_free(&bpf_cpumask_ma, cpumask);
> > > -     migrate_enable();
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  /**
> > >   * bpf_cpumask_release() - Release a previously acquired BPF cpumask.
> > >   * @cpumask: The cpumask being released.
> > > @@ -102,8 +90,12 @@ static void cpumask_free_cb(struct rcu_head *head)
> > >   */
> > >  __bpf_kfunc void bpf_cpumask_release(struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> > >  {
> > > -     if (refcount_dec_and_test(&cpumask->usage))
> > > -             call_rcu(&cpumask->rcu, cpumask_free_cb);
> > > +     if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&cpumask->usage))
> > > +             return;
> > > +
> > > +     migrate_disable();
> > > +     bpf_mem_cache_free_rcu(&bpf_cpumask_ma, cpumask);
> > > +     migrate_enable();
> >
> > The fact that callers have to disable migration like this in order to
> > safely free the memory feels a bit leaky. Is there any reason we can't
> > move this into bpf_mem_{cache_}free_rcu()?
> 
> migrate_disable/enable() are actually not necessary here.
> We can call bpf_mem_cache_free_rcu() directly from any kfunc.

Could you please clarify why? Can't we migrate if the kfunc is called
from a sleepable struct_ops callback? If migration is always disabled
for any kfunc then I agree these migrate_{en,dis}able() calls can be
removed. Otherwise from my reading of the code we'd race between calling
this_cpu_ptr() and the local_irq_save() in unit_free().

Thanks,
David

> Explicit migrate_disable() is only necessary from syscall.
>
> I believe rcu callbacks also cannot migrate, so the existing
> code probably doesn't need them either.