From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: do not use bucket_lock for hashmap iterator
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 16:53:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200902235340.2001300-1-yhs@fb.com> (raw)
Currently, the bpf hashmap iterator takes a bucket_lock, a spin_lock,
before visiting each element in the bucket. This will cause a deadlock
if a map update/delete operates on an element with the same
bucket id of the visited map.
To avoid the deadlock, let us just use rcu_read_lock instead of
bucket_lock. This may result in visiting stale elements, missing some elements,
or repeating some elements, if concurrent map delete/update happens for the
same map. I think using rcu_read_lock is a reasonable compromise.
For users caring stale/missing/repeating element issues, bpf map batch
access syscall interface can be used.
Note that another approach is during bpf_iter link stage, we check
whether the iter program might be able to do update/delete to the visited
map. If it is, reject the link_create. Verifier needs to record whether
an update/delete operation happens for each map for this approach.
I just feel this checking is too specialized, hence still prefer
rcu_read_lock approach.
Patch #1 has the kernel implementation and Patch #2 added a selftest
which can trigger deadlock without Patch #1.
Yonghong Song (2):
bpf: do not use bucket_lock for hashmap iterator
selftests/bpf: add bpf_{update,delete}_map_elem in hashmap iter
program
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 15 ++++-----------
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_bpf_hash_map.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--
2.24.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-09-02 23:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-02 23:53 Yonghong Song [this message]
2020-09-02 23:53 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: do not use bucket_lock for hashmap iterator Yonghong Song
2020-09-03 1:25 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-03 2:44 ` Yonghong Song
2020-09-04 0:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-09-02 23:53 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: add bpf_{update,delete}_map_elem in hashmap iter program Yonghong Song
2020-09-04 0:44 ` [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: do not use bucket_lock for hashmap iterator Alexei Starovoitov
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=20200902235340.2001300-1-yhs@fb.com \
--to=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox