netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test for struct

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: <60a50f93-5416-4ee5-b34a-a1a88652dc82@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:39:56 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test for struct_ops map
 release

On 11/8/24 12:26 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> -static void bpf_testmod_test_2(int a, int b)
> +static void bpf_dummy_unreg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
>   {
> +	WRITE_ONCE(__bpf_dummy_ops, &__bpf_testmod_ops);
>   }

[ ... ]

> +static int run_struct_ops(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	unsigned int repeat;
> +	struct bpf_testmod_ops *ops;
> +
> +	ret = kstrtouint(val, 10, &repeat);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (repeat > 10000)
> +		return -ERANGE;
> +
> +	while (repeat-- > 0) {
> +		ops = READ_ONCE(__bpf_dummy_ops);

I don't think it is the usual bpf_struct_ops implementation which only uses 
READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE to protect the registered ops. tcp-cc uses a 
refcnt+rcu. It seems hid uses synchronize_srcu(). sched_ext seems to also use 
kthread_flush_work() to wait for all ops calling finished. Meaning I don't think 
the current bpf_struct_ops unreg implementation will run into this issue for 
sleepable ops.

The current synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu, call_rcu_tasks) is only needed for 
the tcp-cc because a tcp-cc's ops (which uses refcnt+rcu) can decrement its own 
refcnt. Looking back, this was a mistake (mine). A new tcp-cc ops should have 
been introduced instead to return a new tcp-cc-ops to be used.

> +		if (ops->test_1)
> +			ops->test_1();
> +		if (ops->test_2)
> +			ops->test_2(0, 0);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}