All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>,
	Delyan Kratunov <delyank@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/25] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:52:52 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221013062303.896469-15-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221013062303.896469-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Global variables reside in maps accessible using direct_value_addr
callbacks, so giving each load instruction's rewrite a unique reg->id
disallows us from holding locks which are global.

This is not great, so refactor the active_spin_lock into two separate
fields, active_spin_lock_ptr and active_spin_lock_id, which is generic
enough to allow it for global variables, map lookups, and local kptr
registers at the same time.

Held vs non-held is indicated by active_spin_lock_ptr, which stores the
reg->map_ptr or reg->btf pointer of the register used for locking spin
lock. But the active_spin_lock_id also needs to be compared to ensure
whether bpf_spin_unlock is for the same register.

Next, pseudo load instructions are not given a unique reg->id, as they
are doing lookup for the same map value (max_entries is never greater
than 1).

Essentially, we consider that the tuple of (active_spin_lock_ptr,
active_spin_lock_id) will always be unique for any kind of argument to
bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}.

Note that this can be extended in the future to also remember offset
used for locking, so that we can introduce multiple bpf_spin_lock fields
in the same allocation.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/bpf_verifier.h |  3 ++-
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 9e1e6965f407..c283484f8b94 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -323,7 +323,8 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
 	u32 branches;
 	u32 insn_idx;
 	u32 curframe;
-	u32 active_spin_lock;
+	void *active_spin_lock_ptr;
+	u32 active_spin_lock_id;
 	bool speculative;
 
 	/* first and last insn idx of this verifier state */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 5114cc97cdd4..41a5cc5fbcd4 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1201,7 +1201,8 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state,
 	}
 	dst_state->speculative = src->speculative;
 	dst_state->curframe = src->curframe;
-	dst_state->active_spin_lock = src->active_spin_lock;
+	dst_state->active_spin_lock_ptr = src->active_spin_lock_ptr;
+	dst_state->active_spin_lock_id = src->active_spin_lock_id;
 	dst_state->branches = src->branches;
 	dst_state->parent = src->parent;
 	dst_state->first_insn_idx = src->first_insn_idx;
@@ -5460,22 +5461,35 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 	if (is_lock) {
-		if (cur->active_spin_lock) {
+		if (cur->active_spin_lock_ptr) {
 			verbose(env,
 				"Locking two bpf_spin_locks are not allowed\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
-		cur->active_spin_lock = reg->id;
+		if (map)
+			cur->active_spin_lock_ptr = map;
+		else
+			cur->active_spin_lock_ptr = btf;
+		cur->active_spin_lock_id = reg->id;
 	} else {
-		if (!cur->active_spin_lock) {
+		void *ptr;
+
+		if (map)
+			ptr = map;
+		else
+			ptr = btf;
+
+		if (!cur->active_spin_lock_ptr) {
 			verbose(env, "bpf_spin_unlock without taking a lock\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
-		if (cur->active_spin_lock != reg->id) {
+		if (cur->active_spin_lock_ptr != ptr ||
+		    cur->active_spin_lock_id != reg->id) {
 			verbose(env, "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
-		cur->active_spin_lock = 0;
+		cur->active_spin_lock_ptr = NULL;
+		cur->active_spin_lock_id = 0;
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -10382,8 +10396,8 @@ static int check_ld_imm(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 	    insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX_VALUE) {
 		dst_reg->type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE;
 		dst_reg->off = aux->map_off;
-		if (btf_type_fields_has_field(map->fields_tab, BPF_SPIN_LOCK))
-			dst_reg->id = ++env->id_gen;
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(map->max_entries != 1);
+		/* We want reg->id to be same (0) as map_value is not distinct */
 	} else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD ||
 		   insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX) {
 		dst_reg->type = CONST_PTR_TO_MAP;
@@ -10461,7 +10475,7 @@ static int check_ld_abs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 		return err;
 	}
 
-	if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock) {
+	if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock_ptr) {
 		verbose(env, "BPF_LD_[ABS|IND] cannot be used inside bpf_spin_lock-ed region\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -11727,7 +11741,8 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	if (old->speculative && !cur->speculative)
 		return false;
 
-	if (old->active_spin_lock != cur->active_spin_lock)
+	if (old->active_spin_lock_ptr != cur->active_spin_lock_ptr ||
+	    old->active_spin_lock_id != cur->active_spin_lock_id)
 		return false;
 
 	/* for states to be equal callsites have to be the same
@@ -12366,7 +12381,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 
-				if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock &&
+				if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock_ptr &&
 				    (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL ||
 				     insn->imm != BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock)) {
 					verbose(env, "function calls are not allowed while holding a lock\n");
@@ -12403,7 +12418,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 
-				if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock) {
+				if (env->cur_state->active_spin_lock_ptr) {
 					verbose(env, "bpf_spin_unlock is missing\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
-- 
2.38.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-10-13  6:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-13  6:22 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/25] Local kptrs, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/25] bpf: Document UAPI details for special BPF types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/25] bpf: Allow specifying volatile type modifier for kptrs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/25] bpf: Clobber stack slot when writing over spilled PTR_TO_BTF_ID Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/25] bpf: Fix slot type check in check_stack_write_var_off Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/25] bpf: Drop reg_type_may_be_refcounted_or_null Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19 16:04   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/25] bpf: Refactor kptr_off_tab into fields_tab Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19  1:35   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19  5:42     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19 15:54       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19 23:57         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/25] bpf: Consolidate spin_lock, timer management " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19  1:40   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19  5:43     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/25] bpf: Refactor map->off_arr handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/25] bpf: Support bpf_list_head in map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19  1:59   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19  5:48     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19 15:57       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19 23:59         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/25] bpf: Introduce local kptrs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13 13:48   ` kernel test robot
2022-10-19 17:15   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-10-20  0:48     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-25 16:27       ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-10-25 18:11         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-25 16:32   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-10-25 18:11     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/25] bpf: Recognize bpf_{spin_lock,list_head,list_node} in " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/25] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for owning types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/25] bpf: Support locking bpf_spin_lock in local kptr Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/25] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13 13:48   ` kernel test robot
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 16/25] bpf: Drop kfunc bits from btf_check_func_arg_match Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 17/25] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 18/25] bpf: Teach verifier about non-size constant arguments Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 19/25] bpf: Introduce bpf_kptr_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19  2:31   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-19  5:58     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-19 16:31       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-20  0:44         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-20  1:11           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 20/25] bpf: Introduce bpf_kptr_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 21/25] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 22/25] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-25 17:45   ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-10-25 19:00     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 23/25] libbpf: Add support for private BSS map section Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-18  4:03   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-10-13  6:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 24/25] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-10-13  6:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 25/25] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221013062303.896469-15-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
    --cc=delyank@meta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.