Skip to content

Use Option::Map #247

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 11, 2021
Merged

Use Option::Map #247

merged 2 commits into from
May 11, 2021

Conversation

wcampbell0x2a
Copy link

Fixes #243

alex
alex approved these changes May 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@alex alex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

wedsonaf
wedsonaf suggested changes May 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@wedsonaf wedsonaf left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your contribution.

I'm afraid we need you to sign off with your real name. See #205 where this was discussed before.

@wcampbell0x2a
Copy link
Author

Thanks for your contribution.

I'm afraid we need you to sign off with your real name. See #205 where this was discussed before.

Should be good now

wedsonaf
wedsonaf reviewed May 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@wedsonaf wedsonaf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your contribution.
I'm afraid we need you to sign off with your real name. See #205 where this was discussed before.

Should be good now

Thanks!

@Rust-for-Linux Rust-for-Linux deleted a comment from jeyhun1991 May 2, 2021
@wcampbell0x2a
Use Option::Map
a193593 
Fixes Rust-for-Linux#243

Signed-off-by: Wayne Campbell <[email protected]>
@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented May 4, 2021

The PR is fine, but somehow the change triggers that CI failure; I will have to take a look.

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented May 11, 2021

Looks like we've got some conflicts here, likely as a result of #259.

@alex alex merged commit cbee7ba into Rust-for-Linux:rust May 11, 2021
@Rust-for-Linux Rust-for-Linux deleted a comment from jeyhun1991 May 12, 2021
@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented May 12, 2021

What is that second commit?

@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented May 12, 2021

Ah, to resolve the conflicts? In general, please rebase PRs instead.

ojeda pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2023
@borkmann
bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report
a96a44a 
'./test_progs -t test_local_storage' reported a splat:

[   27.137569] =============================
[   27.138122] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[   27.138650] 6.5.0-03980-gd11ae1b16b0a #247 Tainted: G           O
[   27.139542] -----------------------------
[   27.140106] test_progs/1729 is trying to lock:
[   27.140713] ffff8883ef047b88 (stock_lock){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: local_lock_acquire+0x9/0x130
[   27.141834] other info that might help us debug this:
[   27.142437] context-{5:5}
[   27.142856] 2 locks held by test_progs/1729:
[   27.143352]  #0: ffffffff84bcd9c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: rcu_lock_acquire+0x4/0x40
[   27.144492]  #1: ffff888107deb2c0 (&storage->lock){..-.}-{2:2}, at: bpf_local_storage_update+0x39e/0x8e0
[   27.145855] stack backtrace:
[   27.146274] CPU: 0 PID: 1729 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G           O       6.5.0-03980-gd11ae1b16b0a #247
[   27.147550] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[   27.149127] Call Trace:
[   27.149490]  <TASK>
[   27.149867]  dump_stack_lvl+0x130/0x1d0
[   27.152609]  dump_stack+0x14/0x20
[   27.153131]  __lock_acquire+0x1657/0x2220
[   27.153677]  lock_acquire+0x1b8/0x510
[   27.157908]  local_lock_acquire+0x29/0x130
[   27.159048]  obj_cgroup_charge+0xf4/0x3c0
[   27.160794]  slab_pre_alloc_hook+0x28e/0x2b0
[   27.161931]  __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x51/0x210
[   27.163557]  __kmalloc+0xaa/0x210
[   27.164593]  bpf_map_kzalloc+0xbc/0x170
[   27.165147]  bpf_selem_alloc+0x130/0x510
[   27.166295]  bpf_local_storage_update+0x5aa/0x8e0
[   27.167042]  bpf_fd_sk_storage_update_elem+0xdb/0x1a0
[   27.169199]  bpf_map_update_value+0x415/0x4f0
[   27.169871]  map_update_elem+0x413/0x550
[   27.170330]  __sys_bpf+0x5e9/0x640
[   27.174065]  __x64_sys_bpf+0x80/0x90
[   27.174568]  do_syscall_64+0x48/0xa0
[   27.175201]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
[   27.175932] RIP: 0033:0x7effb40e41ad
[   27.176357] Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d8
[   27.179028] RSP: 002b:00007ffe64c21fc8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141
[   27.180088] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffe64c22768 RCX: 00007effb40e41ad
[   27.181082] RDX: 0000000000000020 RSI: 00007ffe64c22008 RDI: 0000000000000002
[   27.182030] RBP: 00007ffe64c21ff0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007ffe64c22788
[   27.183038] R10: 0000000000000064 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000000
[   27.184006] R13: 00007ffe64c22788 R14: 00007effb42a1000 R15: 0000000000000000
[   27.184958]  </TASK>

It complains about acquiring a local_lock while holding a raw_spin_lock.
It means it should not allocate memory while holding a raw_spin_lock
since it is not safe for RT.

raw_spin_lock is needed because bpf_local_storage supports tracing
context. In particular for task local storage, it is easy to
get a "current" task PTR_TO_BTF_ID in tracing bpf prog.
However, task (and cgroup) local storage has already been moved to
bpf mem allocator which can be used after raw_spin_lock.

The splat is for the sk storage. For sk (and inode) storage,
it has not been moved to bpf mem allocator. Using raw_spin_lock or not,
kzalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) could theoretically be unsafe in tracing context.
However, the local storage helper requires a verifier accepted
sk pointer (PTR_TO_BTF_ID), it is hypothetical if that (mean running
a bpf prog in a kzalloc unsafe context and also able to hold a verifier
accepted sk pointer) could happen.

This patch avoids kzalloc after raw_spin_lock to silent the splat.
There is an existing kzalloc before the raw_spin_lock. At that point,
a kzalloc is very likely required because a lookup has just been done
before. Thus, this patch always does the kzalloc before acquiring
the raw_spin_lock and remove the later kzalloc usage after the
raw_spin_lock. After this change, it will have a charge and then
uncharge during the syscall bpf_map_update_elem() code path.
This patch opts for simplicity and not continue the old
optimization to save one charge and uncharge.

This issue is dated back to the very first commit of bpf_sk_storage
which had been refactored multiple times to create task, inode, and
cgroup storage. This patch uses a Fixes tag with a more recent
commit that should be easier to do backport.

Fixes: b00fa38 ("bpf: Enable non-atomic allocations in local storage")
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ojeda ojeda ojeda left review comments

@wedsonaf wedsonaf wedsonaf approved these changes

@alex alex alex approved these changes

@jeyhun1991 jeyhun1991 jeyhun1991 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Binder: cleanup "warning: manual implementation of Option::map"
5 participants
@wcampbell0x2a @ojeda @alex @wedsonaf @jeyhun1991