From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' <ast@kernel.org>,
'Andrii Nakryiko ' <andrii@kernel.org>,
'Daniel Borkmann ' <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
'Song Liu ' <songliubraving@meta.com>,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/9] bpf: Avoid taking spinlock in bpf_task_storage_get if potential deadlock is detected
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 11:45:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221025184524.3526117-5-martin.lau@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221025184524.3526117-1-martin.lau@linux.dev>
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
bpf_task_storage_get() does a lookup and optionally inserts
new data if BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE is present.
During lookup, it will cache the lookup result and caching requires to
acquire a spinlock. When potential deadlock is detected (by the
bpf_task_storage_busy pcpu-counter added in
commit bc235cdb423a ("bpf: Prevent deadlock from recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete]")),
the current behavior is returning NULL immediately to avoid deadlock. It is
too pessimistic. This patch will go ahead to do a lookup (which is a
lockless operation) but it will avoid caching it in order to avoid
acquiring the spinlock.
When lookup fails to find the data and BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE
is set, an insertion is needed and this requires acquiring a spinlock.
This patch will still return NULL when a potential deadlock is detected.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 1 +
kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c | 15 ++++++++-------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
index 9dc6de1cf185..781d14167140 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
@@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ void bpf_selem_unlink(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem, bool use_trace_rcu)
__bpf_selem_unlink_storage(selem, use_trace_rcu);
}
+/* If cacheit_lockit is false, this lookup function is lockless */
struct bpf_local_storage_data *
bpf_local_storage_lookup(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage,
struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
index 2726435e3eda..bc52bc8b59f7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
@@ -230,17 +230,17 @@ static int bpf_pid_task_storage_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
/* Called by bpf_task_storage_get*() helpers */
static void *__bpf_task_storage_get(struct bpf_map *map,
struct task_struct *task, void *value,
- u64 flags, gfp_t gfp_flags)
+ u64 flags, gfp_t gfp_flags, bool nobusy)
{
struct bpf_local_storage_data *sdata;
- sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, true);
+ sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, nobusy);
if (sdata)
return sdata->data;
/* only allocate new storage, when the task is refcounted */
if (refcount_read(&task->usage) &&
- (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE)) {
+ (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) && nobusy) {
sdata = bpf_local_storage_update(
task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value,
BPF_NOEXIST, gfp_flags);
@@ -254,17 +254,18 @@ static void *__bpf_task_storage_get(struct bpf_map *map,
BPF_CALL_5(bpf_task_storage_get_recur, struct bpf_map *, map, struct task_struct *,
task, void *, value, u64, flags, gfp_t, gfp_flags)
{
+ bool nobusy;
void *data;
WARN_ON_ONCE(!bpf_rcu_lock_held());
if (flags & ~BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE || !task)
return (unsigned long)NULL;
- if (!bpf_task_storage_trylock())
- return (unsigned long)NULL;
+ nobusy = bpf_task_storage_trylock();
data = __bpf_task_storage_get(map, task, value, flags,
- gfp_flags);
- bpf_task_storage_unlock();
+ gfp_flags, nobusy);
+ if (nobusy)
+ bpf_task_storage_unlock();
return (unsigned long)data;
}
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-25 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-25 18:45 [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] bpf: Avoid unnecessary deadlock detection and failure in task storage Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/9] bpf: Remove prog->active check for bpf_lsm and bpf_iter Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/9] bpf: Append _recur naming to the bpf_task_storage helper proto Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/9] bpf: Refactor the core bpf_task_storage_get logic into a new function Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/9] bpf: Add new bpf_task_storage_get proto with no deadlock detection Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/9] bpf: bpf_task_storage_delete_recur does lookup first before the deadlock check Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/9] bpf: Add new bpf_task_storage_delete proto with no deadlock detection Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 8/9] selftests/bpf: Ensure no task storage failure for bpf_lsm.s prog due to " Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-25 18:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 9/9] selftests/bpf: Tracing prog can still do lookup under busy lock Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-26 6:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] bpf: Avoid unnecessary deadlock detection and failure in task storage patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20221025184524.3526117-5-martin.lau@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=songliubraving@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox