Re:

Masami Hiramatsu
2023-05-21T10:09:15Z

On Sun, 21 May 2023 10:08:46 +0200
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 05:47:24PM +0800, Ze Gao wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > Would you like to consider to add rcu_is_watching check in
> > to solve this from the viewpoint of kprobe_multi_link_prog_run
>
> I think this was discussed in here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230321020103.13494-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com/
>
> and was considered a bug, there's fix mentioned later in the thread
>
> there's also this recent patchset:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230517034510.15639-3-zegao@tencent.com/
>
> that solves related problems

I think this rcu_is_watching() is a bit different issue. This rcu_is_watching()
check is required if the kprobe_multi_link_prog_run() uses any RCU API.
E.g. rethook_try_get() is also checks rcu_is_watching() because it uses
call_rcu().

Thank you,

>
> > itself? And accounting of missed runs can be added as well
> > to imporve observability.
>
> right, we count fprobe->nmissed but it's not exposed, we should allow
> to get 'missed' stats from both fprobe and kprobe_multi later, which
> is missing now, will check
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ze
> >
> >
> > -----------------
> > From 29fd3cd713e65461325c2703cf5246a6fae5d4fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
> > Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 17:32:05 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] bpf: kprobe_multi runs bpf progs only when rcu_is_watching
> >
> > From the perspective of kprobe_multi_link_prog_run, any traceable
> > functions can be attached while bpf progs need specical care and
> > ought to be under rcu protection. To solve the likely rcu lockdep
> > warns once for good, when (future) functions in idle path were
> > attached accidentally, we better paying some cost to check at least
> > in kernel-side, and return when rcu is not watching, which helps
> > to avoid any unpredictable results.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 9a050e36dc6c..3e6ea7274765 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -2622,7 +2622,7 @@ kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
> > struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
> > int err;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
> > + if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1 || !rcu_is_watching())) {
> > err = 0;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >

--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>