lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] Wait for running BPF programs when updating map-in-map
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:54:27AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> The map-in-map frequently serves as a mechanism for atomic
> snapshotting of state that a BPF program might record. The current
> implementation is dangerous to use in this way, however, since
> userspace has no way of knowing when all programs that might have
> retrieved the "old" value of the map may have completed.
>
> This change ensures that map update operations on map-in-map map types
> always wait for all references to the old map to drop before returning
> to userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 8339d81cba1d..d7c16ae1e85a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -741,6 +741,18 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
> return err;
> }
>
> +static void maybe_wait_bpf_programs(struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> + /* Wait for any running BPF programs to complete so that
> + * userspace, when we return to it, knows that all programs
> + * that could be running use the new map value.
> + */
> + if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH_OF_MAPS ||
> + map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY_OF_MAPS) {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + }
> +}
> +
> #define BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM_LAST_FIELD flags
>
> static int map_update_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
> @@ -831,6 +843,7 @@ static int map_update_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
> }
> __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> preempt_enable();
> + maybe_wait_bpf_programs(map);
> out:
> free_value:
> kfree(value);
> @@ -883,6 +896,7 @@ static int map_delete_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
> rcu_read_unlock();
> __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> preempt_enable();
> + maybe_wait_bpf_programs(map);

Looks good to me,

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

Also I believe that those rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls in the
existing code are useless. preempt_disable()d code is already an RCU
read-side section, and synchronize_rcu and friends work on those type of
read-side sections as well (as of recent kernel releases) however removing it
may make lockdep unhappy, unless we also replace all rcu_dereference() usages
with rcu_dereference_sched(), so lets leave that alone for now I guess.

thanks,

- Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-12 22:56    [W:0.161 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site