Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/17] bpf: allow RCU-protected lookups to happen from bh context
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:33:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210610193326.p6x3t2c26jitsjob@kafai-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210609103326.278782-3-toke@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> XDP programs are called from a NAPI poll context, which means the RCU
> reference liveness is ensured by local_bh_disable(). Add
> rcu_read_lock_bh_held() as a condition to the RCU checks for map lookups so
> lockdep understands that the dereferences are safe from inside *either* an
> rcu_read_lock() section *or* a local_bh_disable() section. This is done in
> preparation for removing the redundant rcu_read_lock()s from the drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/hashtab.c  | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c  |  6 +++---
>  kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c |  6 ++++--
>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> index 6f6681b07364..72c58cc516a3 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> @@ -596,7 +596,8 @@ static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>  	struct htab_elem *l;
>  	u32 hash, key_size;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -989,7 +990,8 @@ static int htab_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>  		/* unknown flags */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -1082,7 +1084,8 @@ static int htab_lru_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>  		/* unknown flags */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -1148,7 +1151,8 @@ static int __htab_percpu_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
>  		/* unknown flags */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -1202,7 +1206,8 @@ static int __htab_lru_percpu_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
>  		/* unknown flags */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -1276,7 +1281,8 @@ static int htab_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>  	u32 hash, key_size;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> @@ -1311,7 +1317,8 @@ static int htab_lru_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>  	u32 hash, key_size;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> +		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  
>  	key_size = map->key_size;
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 544773970dbc..e880f6bb6f28 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
>   */
>  BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_lookup_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
There is a discrepancy in rcu_read_lock_trace_held() here but
I think the patch_map_ops_generic step in the verifier has skipped
these helper calls.  It is unrelated and can be addressed later
until it is needed.

Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>

>  	return (unsigned long) map->ops->map_lookup_elem(map, key);
>  }
>  
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto = {
>  BPF_CALL_4(bpf_map_update_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key,
>  	   void *, value, u64, flags)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  	return map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, flags);
>  }
>  
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_update_elem_proto = {
>  
>  BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_delete_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>  	return map->ops->map_delete_elem(map, key);
>  }

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-06-10 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-09 10:33 [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] Clean up and document RCU-based object protection for XDP_REDIRECT Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/17] rcu: Create an unrcu_pointer() to remove __rcu from a pointer Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/17] bpf: allow RCU-protected lookups to happen from bh context Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10 18:38   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-06-10 21:24     ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-10 22:27       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10 19:33   ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/17] dev: add rcu_read_lock_bh_held() as a valid check when getting a RCU dev ref Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10 19:37   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-06-10 23:05     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/17] xdp: add proper __rcu annotations to redirect map entries Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10 21:09   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-06-10 23:19     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10 23:32       ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-06-10 23:41         ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/17] ena: remove rcu_read_lock() around XDP program invocation Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 13:57   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/17] bnxt: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 13:58   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-10  8:47     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/17] thunderx: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/17] freescale: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/17] net: intel: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/17] marvell: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/17] mlx4: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10  7:10   ` Tariq Toukan
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/17] nfp: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-11 16:30   ` Simon Horman
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/17] qede: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 14/17] sfc: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 12:15   ` Edward Cree
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 15/17] netsec: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-10  5:30   ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 16/17] stmmac: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 10:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 17/17] net: ti: " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-09 17:04   ` Grygorii Strashko
2021-06-10  0:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] Clean up and document RCU-based object protection for XDP_REDIRECT Yonghong Song

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=20210610193326.p6x3t2c26jitsjob@kafai-mbp \
    --to=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=toke@redhat.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