netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] bpf: Replace bpf memory allocator with kmalloc

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: <db1fb12b-dfd1-4f2e-bc0c-c29515963bc1@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 16:41:56 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] bpf: Replace bpf memory allocator with
 kmalloc_nolock() in local storage

On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 04:24:56PM -0800, Amery Hung wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:46 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:36:08PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:37 PM Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 6:01 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:13 PM Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       if (smap->bpf_ma) {
> > > > > > +       if (smap->use_kmalloc_nolock) {
> > > > > >                 rcu_barrier_tasks_trace();
> > > > > > -               if (!rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp())
> > > > > > -                       rcu_barrier();
> > > > > > -               bpf_mem_alloc_destroy(&smap->selem_ma);
> > > > > > -               bpf_mem_alloc_destroy(&smap->storage_ma);
> > > > > > +               rcu_barrier();
> > > > >
> > > > > Why unconditional rcu_barrier() ?
> > > > > It's implied in rcu_barrier_tasks_trace().
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I am not sure.
> > > >
> > > > > What am I missing?
> > > >
> > > > I hit a UAF in v1 in bpf_selem_free_rcu() when running selftests and
> > > > making rcu_barrier() unconditional addressed it. I think the bug was
> > > > due to map_free() not waiting for bpf_selem_free_rcu() (an RCU
> > > > callback) to finish.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at rcu_barrier() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace(), they pass
> > > > different rtp to rcu_barrier_tasks_generic() so I think both are
> > > > needed to make sure in-flight RCU and RCU tasks trace callbacks are
> > > > done.
> > > >
> > > > Not an expert in RCU so I might be wrong and it was something else.
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > Please help us here.
> > > Does rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() imply rcu_barrier() ?
> >
> > I am sorry, but no, it does not.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Paul!

No problem!

> > If latency proves to be an issue, one approach is to invoke rcu_barrier()
> > and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() each in its own workqueue handler.  But as
> > always, I suggest invoking them one after the other to see if a latency
> > problem really exists before adding complexity.
> >
> > Except that rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() is never invoked by rcu_barrier(),
> > only rcu_barrier_tasks() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace().  So do you really
> > mean rcu_barrier()?  Or rcu_barrier_tasks()?
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. I misread the code. I was trying to say that
> rcu_barrier() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() seem to wait on different
> callacks but then referring to rcu_barrier_tasks() implementation
> wrongly.

Well, you did reach the correct conclusion, even if by dubious means.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> > Either way, rcu_barrier_tasks() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() are also
> > independent of each other in the sense that if you need tw wait on
> > callbacks from both call_rcu_tasks() and call_rcu_tasks_trace(), you
> > need both rcu_barrier_tasks() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace() to be invoked.
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul