-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge branch 'Remove KF_KPTR_GET kfunc flag'
David Vernet says: ==================== We've managed to improve the UX for kptrs significantly over the last 9 months. All of the existing use cases which previously had KF_KPTR_GET kfuncs (struct bpf_cpumask *, struct task_struct *, and struct cgroup *) have all been updated to be synchronized using RCU. In other words, their KF_KPTR_GET kfuncs have been removed in favor of KF_RCU | KF_ACQUIRE kfuncs, with the pointers themselves also being readable from maps in an RCU read region thanks to the types being RCU safe. While KF_KPTR_GET was a logical starting point for kptrs, it's become clear that they're not the correct abstraction. KF_KPTR_GET is a flag that essentially does nothing other than enforcing that the argument to a function is a pointer to a referenced kptr map value. At first glance, that's a useful thing to guarantee to a kfunc. It gives kfuncs the ability to try and acquire a reference on that kptr without requiring the BPF prog to do something like this: struct kptr_type *in_map, *new = NULL; in_map = bpf_kptr_xchg(&map->value, NULL); if (in_map) { new = bpf_kptr_type_acquire(in_map); in_map = bpf_kptr_xchg(&map->value, in_map); if (in_map) bpf_kptr_type_release(in_map); } That's clearly a pretty ugly (and racy) UX, and if using KF_KPTR_GET is the only alternative, it's better than nothing. However, the problem with any KF_KPTR_GET kfunc lies in the fact that it always requires some kind of synchronization in order to safely do an opportunistic acquire of the kptr in the map. This is because a BPF program running on another CPU could do a bpf_kptr_xchg() on that map value, and free the kptr after it's been read by the KF_KPTR_GET kfunc. For example, the now-removed bpf_task_kptr_get() kfunc did the following: struct task_struct *bpf_task_kptr_get(struct task_struct **pp) { struct task_struct *p; rcu_read_lock(); p = READ_ONCE(*pp); /* If p is non-NULL, it could still be freed by another CPU, * so we have to do an opportunistic refcount_inc_not_zero() * and return NULL if the task will be freed after the * current RCU read region. */ |f (p && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&p->rcu_users)) p = NULL; rcu_read_unlock(); return p; } In other words, the kfunc uses RCU to ensure that the task remains valid after it's been peeked from the map. However, this is completely redundant with just defining a KF_RCU kfunc that itself does a refcount_inc_not_zero(), which is exactly what bpf_task_acquire() now does. So, the question of whether KF_KPTR_GET is useful is actually, "Are there any synchronization mechanisms / safety flags that are required by certain kptrs, but which are not provided by the verifier to kfuncs?" The answer to that question today is "No", because every kptr we currently care about is RCU protected. Even if the answer ever became "yes", the proper way to support that referenced kptr type would be to add support for whatever synchronization mechanism it requires in the verifier, rather than giving kfuncs a flag that says, "Here's a pointer to a referenced kptr in a map, do whatever you need to do." With all that said -- so as to allow us to consolidate the kfunc API, and simplify the verifier, this patchset removes the KF_KPTR_GET kfunc flag. --- This is v2 of this patchset v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230415103231.236063-1-void@manifault.com/ Changelog: ---------- v1 -> v2: - Fix KF_RU -> KF_RCU typo in commit summary for patch 2/3, and in cover letter (Alexei) - In order to reduce churn, don't shift all KF_* flags down by 1. We'll just fill the now-empty slot the next time we add a flag (Alexei) ==================== Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
- Loading branch information
Showing
7 changed files
with
11 additions
and
233 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.