From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Simon <simon@swine.de>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org,
andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com, olsajiri@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: disable private stack for sleepable programs
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:11:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ao7mEnrgVNj7prrI@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DKYHBHNAMR03.B8SKDLC9FQ94@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 06:20:16PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat Aug 22, 2026 at 3:54 PM PDT, Christian Simon wrote:
> > A JITed BPF program can use one private stack per program and CPU.
> > Sleepable programs can be preempted, allowing another task to run the
> > same program on the same CPU. The second invocation then reuses and can
> > overwrite the first invocation's private stack.
>
> I'm confused by this. sleepable progs go through __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur()
> which has per-prog recurison counter. So preemption of the prog
> doesn't break private stack.
> If the same prog attemps to execute on the same cpu it will be skipped.
>
> syscall prog types go via bpf_prog_run_array_sleepable()
> that have per prog recursions counter.
>
> Looks like we're not doing it for bpf_prog_run_array_uprobe().
> I'm not sure what the right trade off here.
> I feel universally checking for recursion is better
> then selectively disabling private stack for uprobe.
also during the load we can't tell if kprobe program will be attached
as kprobe or uprobe [1] so having a way to disable private stack for
a program would solve this as well
jirka
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ao2f-rBgT0SqX6Pw@krava/
>
> > Disable private stack for sleepable programs so they use the regular kernel
> > stack, which handles preemption correctly. This change is intentionally
> > limited to programs marked sleepable; preemptible non-sleepable dispatch
> > paths require separate protection.
> >
> > Fixes: 7d1cd70d4b16 ("bpf, x86: Support private stack in jit")
> > Fixes: 6c17a882d380 ("bpf, arm64: JIT support for private stack")
> > Fixes: 156d985123b6 ("powerpc64/bpf: Implement JIT support for private stack")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Simon <simon@swine.de>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 5e37ca75e5c4..038753ef07a9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -5237,6 +5237,15 @@ static enum priv_stack_mode bpf_enable_priv_stack(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > if (!bpf_jit_supports_private_stack())
> > return NO_PRIV_STACK;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Sleepable programs can be preempted, allowing another task to run
> > + * the same program on the same CPU. Since private stack is per-CPU
> > + * and per-program, the second invocation would corrupt the first's
> > + * stack. Disable private stack for sleepable programs.
> > + */
> > + if (prog->sleepable)
> > + return NO_PRIV_STACK;
>
> This is not true in genreal. sleepable progs can use priv stack.
>
> pw-bot: cr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-26 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-22 22:54 [PATCH bpf v3 0/2] disable private stack for sleepable programs Christian Simon
2026-08-22 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: " Christian Simon
2026-08-22 23:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-26 1:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-08-26 13:11 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2026-08-27 14:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-08-27 16:35 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-08-27 16:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-08-27 16:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-08-27 22:32 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-10-30 1:22 ` HyeongJun An
2026-10-30 23:01 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-10-31 1:19 ` HyeongJun An
2026-10-31 5:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-31 9:42 ` HyeongJun An
2026-08-22 22:54 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: verify preemptible uprobes avoid private stack Christian Simon
2026-08-22 23:58 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=ao7mEnrgVNj7prrI@krava \
--to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=simon@swine.de \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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