public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Dohyun Kim <dohyunkim@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kkd@meta.com,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 22/25] bpf: Introduce rqspinlock kfuncs
Date: Mon,  3 Mar 2025 07:23:02 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250303152305.3195648-23-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250303152305.3195648-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Introduce four new kfuncs, bpf_res_spin_lock, and bpf_res_spin_unlock,
and their irqsave/irqrestore variants, which wrap the rqspinlock APIs.
bpf_res_spin_lock returns a conditional result, depending on whether the
lock was acquired (NULL is returned when lock acquisition succeeds,
non-NULL upon failure). The memory pointed to by the returned pointer
upon failure can be dereferenced after the NULL check to obtain the
error code.

Instead of using the old bpf_spin_lock type, introduce a new type with
the same layout, and the same alignment, but a different name to avoid
type confusion.

Preemption is disabled upon successful lock acquisition, however IRQs
are not. Special kfuncs can be introduced later to allow disabling IRQs
when taking a spin lock. Resilient locks are safe against AA deadlocks,
hence not disabling IRQs currently does not allow violation of kernel
safety.

__irq_flag annotation is used to accept IRQ flags for the IRQ-variants,
with the same semantics as existing bpf_local_irq_{save, restore}.

These kfuncs will require additional verifier-side support in subsequent
commits, to allow programs to hold multiple locks at the same time.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 include/asm-generic/rqspinlock.h |  7 +++
 include/linux/bpf.h              |  1 +
 kernel/locking/rqspinlock.c      | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 86 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/asm-generic/rqspinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/rqspinlock.h
index 418b652e0249..06906489d9ba 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/rqspinlock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/rqspinlock.h
@@ -23,6 +23,13 @@ struct rqspinlock {
 	};
 };
 
+/* Even though this is same as struct rqspinlock, we need to emit a distinct
+ * type in BTF for BPF programs.
+ */
+struct bpf_res_spin_lock {
+	u32 val;
+};
+
 struct qspinlock;
 #ifdef CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS
 typedef struct qspinlock rqspinlock_t;
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 4c4028d865ee..aa47e11371b3 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 #include <linux/static_call.h>
 #include <linux/memcontrol.h>
 #include <linux/cfi.h>
+#include <asm/rqspinlock.h>
 
 struct bpf_verifier_env;
 struct bpf_verifier_log;
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rqspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/rqspinlock.c
index 0031a1bfbd4e..0c53d36e2f6c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rqspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rqspinlock.c
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
 
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/bug.h>
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
 #include <linux/percpu.h>
 #include <linux/hardirq.h>
@@ -684,3 +686,79 @@ int __lockfunc resilient_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(rqspinlock_t *lock, u32 val)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(resilient_queued_spin_lock_slowpath);
 
 #endif /* CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS */
+
+__bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
+
+#define REPORT_STR(ret) ({ ret == -ETIMEDOUT ? "Timeout detected" : "AA or ABBA deadlock detected"; })
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_res_spin_lock(struct bpf_res_spin_lock *lock)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(rqspinlock_t) != sizeof(struct bpf_res_spin_lock));
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(rqspinlock_t) != __alignof__(struct bpf_res_spin_lock));
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	ret = res_spin_lock((rqspinlock_t *)lock);
+	if (unlikely(ret)) {
+		preempt_enable();
+		rqspinlock_report_violation(REPORT_STR(ret), lock);
+		return ret;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc void bpf_res_spin_unlock(struct bpf_res_spin_lock *lock)
+{
+	res_spin_unlock((rqspinlock_t *)lock);
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave(struct bpf_res_spin_lock *lock, unsigned long *flags__irq_flag)
+{
+	u64 *ptr = (u64 *)flags__irq_flag;
+	unsigned long flags;
+	int ret;
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	local_irq_save(flags);
+	ret = res_spin_lock((rqspinlock_t *)lock);
+	if (unlikely(ret)) {
+		local_irq_restore(flags);
+		preempt_enable();
+		rqspinlock_report_violation(REPORT_STR(ret), lock);
+		return ret;
+	}
+	*ptr = flags;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc void bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore(struct bpf_res_spin_lock *lock, unsigned long *flags__irq_flag)
+{
+	u64 *ptr = (u64 *)flags__irq_flag;
+	unsigned long flags = *ptr;
+
+	res_spin_unlock((rqspinlock_t *)lock);
+	local_irq_restore(flags);
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
+
+BTF_KFUNCS_START(rqspinlock_kfunc_ids)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_res_spin_lock, KF_RET_NULL)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_res_spin_unlock)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave, KF_RET_NULL)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore)
+BTF_KFUNCS_END(rqspinlock_kfunc_ids)
+
+static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set rqspinlock_kfunc_set = {
+	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
+	.set = &rqspinlock_kfunc_ids,
+};
+
+static __init int rqspinlock_register_kfuncs(void)
+{
+	return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC, &rqspinlock_kfunc_set);
+}
+late_initcall(rqspinlock_register_kfuncs);
-- 
2.43.5


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-03 15:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-03 15:22 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/25] Resilient Queued Spin Lock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/25] locking: Move MCS struct definition to public header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/25] locking: Move common qspinlock helpers to a private header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/25] locking: Allow obtaining result of arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/25] locking: Copy out qspinlock.c to rqspinlock.c Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/25] rqspinlock: Add rqspinlock.h header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/25] rqspinlock: Drop PV and virtualization support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/25] rqspinlock: Add support for timeouts Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/25] rqspinlock: Hardcode cond_acquire loops for arm64 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/25] rqspinlock: Protect pending bit owners from stalls Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/25] rqspinlock: Protect waiters in queue " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/25] rqspinlock: Protect waiters in trylock fallback " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/25] rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 13/25] rqspinlock: Add a test-and-set fallback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 14/25] rqspinlock: Add basic support for CONFIG_PARAVIRT Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 15/25] rqspinlock: Add helper to print a splat on timeout or deadlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 16/25] rqspinlock: Add macros for rqspinlock usage Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 17/25] rqspinlock: Add locktorture support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 18/25] rqspinlock: Add entry to Makefile, MAINTAINERS Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 19/25] bpf: Convert hashtab.c to rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 20/25] bpf: Convert percpu_freelist.c " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 21/25] bpf: Convert lpm_trie.c " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:23 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2025-03-03 15:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 23/25] bpf: Implement verifier support for rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 24/25] bpf: Maintain FIFO property for rqspinlock unlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-03 15:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 25/25] selftests/bpf: Add tests for rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-14 23:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/25] Resilient Queued Spin Lock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

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=20250303152305.3195648-23-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=brho@google.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=dohyunkim@google.com \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=joshdon@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=kkd@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llong@redhat.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@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