From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, song@kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org, sinquersw@gmail.com,
kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/8] bpf: enable detaching links of struct_ops objects.
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 23:17:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20b1a16e-2614-4022-9389-c28b332a29fb@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240524223036.318800-3-thinker.li@gmail.com>
On 5/24/24 3:30 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> +static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_detach(struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_link *st_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_struct_ops_link, link);
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> + struct bpf_map *map;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
update_mutex is needed to detach.
> +
> + map = rcu_dereference_protected(st_link->map, lockdep_is_held(&update_mutex));
> + if (!map) {
> + mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + st_map = container_of(map, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, map);
> +
> + st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data, link);
> +
> + rcu_assign_pointer(st_link->map, NULL);
> + /* Pair with bpf_map_get() in bpf_struct_ops_link_create() or
> + * bpf_map_inc() in bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update().
> + */
> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_struct_ops_map_lops = {
> .dealloc = bpf_struct_ops_map_link_dealloc,
> + .detach = bpf_struct_ops_map_link_detach,
> .show_fdinfo = bpf_struct_ops_map_link_show_fdinfo,
> .fill_link_info = bpf_struct_ops_map_link_fill_link_info,
> .update_map = bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update,
> @@ -1176,13 +1208,22 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_link_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
> if (err)
> goto err_out;
>
> + /* Init link->map before calling reg() in case being detached
> + * immediately.
> + */
With update_mutex held in link_create here, the parallel detach can still happen
before the link is fully initialized (the link->map pointer here in particular)?
> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(link->map, map);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
> err = st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->reg(st_map->kvalue.data, &link->link);
> if (err) {
> + RCU_INIT_POINTER(link->map, NULL);
I was hoping by holding the the update_mutex, it can avoid this link->map init
dance, like RCU_INIT_POINTER(link->map, map) above and then resetting here on
the error case.
> + mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
> bpf_link_cleanup(&link_primer);
> + /* The link has been free by bpf_link_cleanup() */
> link = NULL;
> goto err_out;
> }
> - RCU_INIT_POINTER(link->map, map);
If only init link->map once here like the existing code (and the init is
protected by the update_mutex), the subsystem should not be able to detach until
the link->map is fully initialized.
or I am missing something obvious. Can you explain why this link->map init dance
is still needed?
> + mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-29 6:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-24 22:30 [PATCH bpf-next v6 0/8] Notify user space when a struct_ops object is detached/unregistered Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 1/8] bpf: pass bpf_struct_ops_link to callbacks in bpf_struct_ops Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/8] bpf: enable detaching links of struct_ops objects Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-29 6:17 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2024-05-29 15:04 ` Kuifeng Lee
2024-05-29 22:38 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-29 23:26 ` Kuifeng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 3/8] bpf: support epoll from bpf struct_ops links Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 4/8] bpf: export bpf_link_inc_not_zero Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 5/8] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops with epoll Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-29 22:26 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 6/8] selftests/bpf: detach a struct_ops link from the subsystem managing it Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-29 21:51 ` Martin KaFai Lau
[not found] ` <CAHE2DV0RBf9JbkmngsdKdER5F2KmUXwY_JH44Z09DsY0VNa37A@mail.gmail.com>
2024-05-30 17:53 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-30 19:34 ` Kuifeng Lee
2024-05-30 19:42 ` Kuifeng Lee
2024-05-30 20:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 7/8] selftests/bpf: make sure bpf_testmod handling racing link destroying well Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-24 22:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 8/8] bpftool: Change pid_iter.bpf.c to comply with the change of bpf_link_fops 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=20b1a16e-2614-4022-9389-c28b332a29fb@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.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