From: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 02/11] bpf: Improve bpf_reg_state space usage for non-owning ref lock
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:41:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230209174144.3280955-3-davemarchevsky@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230209174144.3280955-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com>
This patch eliminates extra bpf_reg_state memory usage added due to
previous patch keeping a copy of lock identity in reg state for
non-owning refs.
Instead of copying lock identity around, this patch changes
non_owning_ref_lock field to be a bool, taking advantage of the
following:
* There can currently only be one active lock at a time
* non-owning refs are only valid in the critical section
So if a verifier_state has an active_lock, any non-owning ref must've
been obtained under that lock, and any non-owning ref not obtained under
that lock must have been invalidated previously. Therefore if a
non-owning ref is associated with a lock, it's the active_lock of the
current state. So we can keep a bool "are we associated with active_lock
of current state" instead of copying lock identity around.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
---
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 2 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 ++++++++++---------------
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 7b5fbb66446c..d25446dd0413 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ struct bpf_reg_state {
struct {
struct btf *btf;
u32 btf_id;
- struct bpf_active_lock non_owning_ref_lock;
+ bool non_owning_ref_lock;
};
struct { /* for PTR_TO_MEM | PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index f693cc97c574..89c09752421c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -190,8 +190,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem {
static int acquire_reference_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx);
static int release_reference(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int ref_obj_id);
-static void invalidate_non_owning_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- struct bpf_active_lock *lock);
+static void invalidate_non_owning_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env);
static int ref_set_non_owning_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
@@ -1077,9 +1076,8 @@ static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
verbose_a("id=%d", reg->id);
if (reg->ref_obj_id)
verbose_a("ref_obj_id=%d", reg->ref_obj_id);
- if (reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr)
- verbose_a("non_own_id=(%p,%d)", reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr,
- reg->non_owning_ref_lock.id);
+ if (reg->non_owning_ref_lock)
+ verbose_a("%s", "non_own_ref");
if (t != SCALAR_VALUE)
verbose_a("off=%d", reg->off);
if (type_is_pkt_pointer(t))
@@ -5049,7 +5047,7 @@ static int check_ptr_to_btf_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
}
if (type_is_alloc(reg->type) && !reg->ref_obj_id &&
- !reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr) {
+ !reg->non_owning_ref_lock) {
verbose(env, "verifier internal error: ref_obj_id for allocated object must be non-zero\n");
return -EFAULT;
}
@@ -6056,7 +6054,7 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
return -EINVAL;
}
- invalidate_non_owning_refs(env, &cur->active_lock);
+ invalidate_non_owning_refs(env);
cur->active_lock.ptr = NULL;
cur->active_lock.id = 0;
@@ -7373,16 +7371,14 @@ static int release_reference(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return 0;
}
-static void invalidate_non_owning_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
- struct bpf_active_lock *lock)
+static void invalidate_non_owning_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
{
struct bpf_func_state *unused;
struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate(env->cur_state, unused, reg, ({
- if (reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr &&
- reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr == lock->ptr &&
- reg->non_owning_ref_lock.id == lock->id)
+ if (type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(reg->type) &&
+ reg->non_owning_ref_lock)
__mark_reg_unknown(env, reg);
}));
}
@@ -8948,13 +8944,12 @@ static int ref_set_non_owning_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_
return -EFAULT;
}
- if (reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr) {
+ if (reg->non_owning_ref_lock) {
verbose(env, "verifier internal error: non_owning_ref_lock already set\n");
return -EFAULT;
}
- reg->non_owning_ref_lock.id = state->active_lock.id;
- reg->non_owning_ref_lock.ptr = state->active_lock.ptr;
+ reg->non_owning_ref_lock = true;
return 0;
}
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-09 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-09 17:41 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 00/11] BPF rbtree next-gen datastructure Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 01/11] bpf: Migrate release_on_unlock logic to non-owning ref semantics Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 13:24 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 17:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-09 17:41 ` Dave Marchevsky [this message]
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 03/11] selftests/bpf: Update linked_list tests for " Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 04/11] bpf: Add basic bpf_rb_{root,node} support Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 14:18 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 05/11] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} kfuncs Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 06/11] bpf: Add support for bpf_rb_root and bpf_rb_node in kfunc args Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 07/11] bpf: Add callback validation to kfunc verifier logic Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 08/11] bpf: Special verifier handling for bpf_rbtree_{remove, first} Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 3:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 8:22 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 17:30 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 14:15 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 13:55 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 17:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 18:03 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 18:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 19:38 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-02-10 20:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-10 19:01 ` Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 09/11] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} decls to bpf_experimental.h Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add rbtree selftests Dave Marchevsky
2023-02-10 2:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-09 17:41 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 11/11] bpf, documentation: Add graph documentation for non-owning refs Dave Marchevsky
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=20230209174144.3280955-3-davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--to=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@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