Re: [PATCH bpf v4 2/3] bpf: Avoid faultable build ID reads under mm locks

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> On 5/14/26 3:14 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 02:31:58PM -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> >> On 5/14/26 1:47 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 11:47:26AM -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> >>>> Sleepable build ID parsing can block in __kernel_read() [1], so the
> >>>> stackmap sleepable path must not call it while holding mmap_lock or a
> >>>> per-VMA read lock.
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue and the fix are conceptually similar to a recent procfs
> >>>> patch [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> Resolve each covered VMA with a stable read-side reference, preferring
> >>>> lock_vma_under_rcu() and falling back to mmap_read_trylock()
> >>>
> >>> Why trylock()? Why not just reuse the mechanism introduced in [2]? That is
> >>> abstract out the mechanism introduced in [2] in mm core and reuse it.
> >>
> >> v1 used mmap_read_lock() as the fallback, but Puranjay pointed out [1]
> >> that stackmap can be called when the caller already holds
> >> mmap_lock. 
> > 
> > Can you exapnd on the scenario where caller already holds mmap_lock? Is this
> > code path can be taken from bpf programs and bpf programs can be attached at
> > functions/code-paths already holding the mmap_lock?
> 
> Exactly. For example, tracing BPF programs may attach to mm internals, and
> there are also BPF iterators over VMAs (i.e. SEC("iter/task_vma")). And
> probably other use-cases.
> 
> Bottom line is we can't assume it's safe to take mmap_lock in a code path
> reachable from a BPF program.

Sounds good. Let's add a comment in code amd also explanation in commit message.

> 
> > 
> >> So I changed to trylock since v2, similar to non-sleepable
> >> path.
> >>
> >> AFAIU this means that the common mechanism needs to support trylock
> >> behavior as in stack_map_lock_vma() in this patch.
> >>
> >> Do you think this is worth factoring out of stackmap.c?
> > 
> > Do you think we will need similar handling at more places in future
> > (particularly in bpf world) then it makes sense to factoring out now? Otherwise
> > we can wait until we are sure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know. IMO we shouldn't prematurely generalize a piece of
> code with a single user. But I just may be unaware of the others.
> 

So, we have two somewhat similar users with trylock being the difference. I
think we can continue as is for now and let's punt the decision to refactoring
and common code when next use-case arise.