From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
coreteam@netfilter.org,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] netfilter: bpf: Support BPF_F_NETFILTER_IP_DEFRAG in netfilter link
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 11:47:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230714094741.GA7912@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <t6wypww537golmoosbikfuombrqq555fh5mbycwl4whto6joo4@hcqlospkgqyr>
Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:10:03PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Why is rcu_assign_pointer() used?
> > If it's not RCU protected, what is the point of rcu_*() accessors
> > and rcu_read_lock() ?
> >
> > In general, the pattern:
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > ptr = rcu_dereference(...);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > ptr->..
> > is a bug. 100%.
FWIW, I agree with Alexei, it does look... dodgy.
> The reason I left it like this is b/c otherwise I think there is a race
> with module unload and taking a refcnt. For example:
>
> ptr = READ_ONCE(global_var)
> <module unload on other cpu>
> // ptr invalid
> try_module_get(ptr->owner)
>
Yes, I agree.
> I think the the synchronize_rcu() call in
> kernel/module/main.c:free_module() protects against that race based on
> my reading.
>
> Maybe the ->enable() path can store a copy of the hook ptr in
> struct bpf_nf_link to get rid of the odd rcu_dereference()?
>
> Open to other ideas too -- would appreciate any hints.
I would suggest the following:
- Switch ordering of patches 2 and 3.
What is currently patch 3 would add the .owner fields only.
Then, what is currently patch #2 would document the rcu/modref
interaction like this (omitting error checking for brevity):
rcu_read_lock();
v6_hook = rcu_dereference(nf_defrag_v6_hook);
if (!v6_hook) {
rcu_read_unlock();
err = request_module("nf_defrag_ipv6");
if (err)
return err < 0 ? err : -EINVAL;
rcu_read_lock();
v6_hook = rcu_dereference(nf_defrag_v6_hook);
}
if (v6_hook && try_module_get(v6_hook->owner))
v6_hook = rcu_pointer_handoff(v6_hook);
else
v6_hook = NULL;
rcu_read_unlock();
if (!v6_hook)
err();
v6_hook->enable();
I'd store the v4/6_hook pointer in the nf bpf link struct, its probably more
self-explanatory for the disable side in that we did pick up a module reference
that we still own at delete time, without need for any rcu involvement.
Because above handoff is repetitive for ipv4 and ipv6,
I suggest to add an agnostic helper for this.
I know you added distinct structures for ipv4 and ipv6 but if they would use
the same one you could add
static const struct nf_defrag_hook *get_proto_frag_hook(const struct nf_defrag_hook __rcu *hook,
const char *modulename);
And then use it like:
v4_hook = get_proto_frag_hook(nf_defrag_v4_hook, "nf_defrag_ipv4");
Without a need to copy the modprobe and handoff part.
What do you think?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-14 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-12 23:43 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] Support defragmenting IPv(4|6) packets in BPF Daniel Xu
2023-07-12 23:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/6] netfilter: defrag: Add glue hooks for enabling/disabling defrag Daniel Xu
2023-07-12 23:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] netfilter: bpf: Support BPF_F_NETFILTER_IP_DEFRAG in netfilter link Daniel Xu
2023-07-13 0:43 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-07-13 1:22 ` Daniel Xu
2023-07-13 1:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-07-13 4:33 ` Daniel Xu
2023-07-13 23:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-07-13 23:42 ` Daniel Xu
2023-07-14 9:47 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2023-07-18 21:45 ` Daniel Xu
2023-07-12 23:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] netfilter: bpf: Prevent defrag module unload while link active Daniel Xu
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=20230714094741.GA7912@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=dxu@dxuuu.xyz \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).