From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@outlook.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org,
sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
memxor@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com,
changwoo@igalia.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_select_cpu
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 00:39:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6VIFPucwML5YLSJ@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR03MB50805D6F4B8710EDB304CF5C99F72@AM6PR03MB5080.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 07:30:14PM +0000, Juntong Deng wrote:
...
> +static int scx_kfunc_ids_other_rqlocked_filter(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 kfunc_id)
> +{
> + u32 moff = prog->aux->attach_st_ops_member_off;
> +
> + if (moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, runnable) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, dequeue) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, stopping) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, quiescent) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, yield) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, cpu_acquire) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, running) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, core_sched_before) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, set_cpumask) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, update_idle) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, tick) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, enable) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, set_weight) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, disable) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, exit_task) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, dump_task) ||
> + moff == offsetof(struct sched_ext_ops, dump_cpu))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return -EACCES;
Actually, do we need this filter at all?
I think the other filters in your patch set should be sufficient to
establish the correct permissions for all kfuncs, as none of them need to
be called from any rq-locked operations. Or am I missing something?
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-06 23:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-05 19:27 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/8] bpf, sched_ext: Make kfunc filters support struct_ops context to reduce runtime overhead Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/8] bpf: Add struct_ops context information to struct bpf_prog_aux Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_select_cpu Juntong Deng
2025-02-06 22:43 ` Andrea Righi
2025-02-06 23:39 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2025-02-07 0:02 ` Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_enqueue_dispatch Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_dispatch Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 5/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_cpu_release Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 6/8] sched_ext: Add filter for scx_kfunc_ids_unlocked Juntong Deng
2025-02-08 3:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-02-09 15:22 ` Andrea Righi
2025-02-10 18:05 ` Tejun Heo
2025-02-10 23:40 ` Juntong Deng
2025-02-11 3:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-02-14 20:30 ` Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 7/8] sched_ext: Removed mask-based runtime restrictions on calling kfuncs in different contexts Juntong Deng
2025-02-05 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 8/8] selftests/sched_ext: Update enq_select_cpu_fails to adapt to struct_ops context filter Juntong Deng
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=Z6VIFPucwML5YLSJ@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=juntong.deng@outlook.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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.