From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: make sure bpf_testmod handling racing link destroying well.
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 22:56:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240507055600.2382627-7-thinker.li@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240507055600.2382627-1-thinker.li@gmail.com>
Subsystems that manage struct_ops objects may attempt to detach a link when
the link has been released or is about to be released. The test in
this patch demonstrate to developers the correct way to handle this
situation using a locking mechanism and atomic64_inc_not_zero().
A subsystem must ensure that a link is valid when detaching the link. In
order to achieve that, the subsystem may need to obtain a lock to safeguard
a table that holds the pointer to the link being detached. However, the
subsystem cannot invoke link->ops->detach() while holding the lock because
other tasks may be in the process of unregistering, which could lead to a
deadlock. This is why atomic64_inc_not_zero() is used to maintain the
link's validity. (Refer to bpf_dummy_do_link_detach() in the previous patch
for more details.)
This test make sure the pattern mentioned above work correctly.
Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
index 9f6657b53a93..1e37037cfd8a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c
@@ -292,6 +292,48 @@ static void test_subsystem_detach(void)
struct_ops_detach__destroy(skel);
}
+/* A subsystem detachs a link while the link is going to be free. */
+static void test_subsystem_detach_free(void)
+{
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
+ .data_in = &pkt_v4,
+ .data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4));
+ struct struct_ops_detach *skel;
+ struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
+ int prog_fd;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = struct_ops_detach__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_detach_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ link = bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(skel->maps.testmod_do_detach);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_struct_ops"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.start_detach);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "start_detach_fd"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* Do detachment from the registered subsystem */
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "start_detach_run"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* The link may have zero refcount value and may have been
+ * unregistered, so the detachment from the subsystem should fail.
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, (u32)-ENOENT, "start_detach_run retval");
+
+ /* Sync RCU to make sure the link is freed without any crash */
+ ASSERT_OK(kern_sync_rcu(), "sync rcu");
+
+cleanup:
+ struct_ops_detach__destroy(skel);
+}
+
void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void)
{
if (test__start_subtest("test_struct_ops_load"))
@@ -304,5 +346,7 @@ void serial_test_struct_ops_module(void)
test_detach_link();
if (test__start_subtest("test_subsystem_detach"))
test_subsystem_detach();
+ if (test__start_subtest("test_subsystem_detach_free"))
+ test_subsystem_detach_free();
}
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-07 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-07 5:55 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] Notify user space when a struct_ops object is detached/unregistered Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/6] bpf: pass bpf_struct_ops_link to callbacks in bpf_struct_ops Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/6] bpf: enable detaching links of struct_ops objects Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-08 23:22 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-09 0:14 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-09 0:36 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-09 16:59 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-09 0:46 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: support epoll from bpf struct_ops links Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/6] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops with epoll Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-08 23:34 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-09 0:22 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/6] selftests/bpf: detach a struct_ops link from the subsystem managing it Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-08 23:50 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-09 5:50 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-07 5:56 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2024-05-09 0:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: make sure bpf_testmod handling racing link destroying well Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-09 17:02 ` Kui-Feng Lee
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=20240507055600.2382627-7-thinker.li@gmail.com \
--to=thinker.li@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@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