[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: WARNING in kvmalloc_node

On 2018年02月14日 20:29, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:17:18 +0100
> Daniel Borkmann <> wrote:
>> On 02/14/2018 01:02 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2018年02月14日 19:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 14-02-18 19:47:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2018年02月14日 17:28, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>>> [ +Jason, +Jesper ]
>>>>>> On 02/14/2018 09:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue 13-02-18 18:55:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:59:01PM -0800, syzbot wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>    kvmalloc include/linux/mm.h:541 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>    kvmalloc_array include/linux/mm.h:557 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>    __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc include/linux/ptr_ring.h:474 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>    ptr_ring_init include/linux/ptr_ring.h:492 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>    __cpu_map_entry_alloc kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:359 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>    cpu_map_update_elem+0x3c3/0x8e0 kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:490
>>>>>>>>>    map_update_elem kernel/bpf/syscall.c:698 [inline]
>>>>>>>> Blame the BPF people, not the MM people ;-)
>>>>>> Heh, not really. ;-)
>>>>>>> Yes. kvmalloc (the vmalloc part) doesn't support GFP_ATOMIC semantic.
>>>>>> Agree, that doesn't work.
>>>>>> Bug was added in commit 0bf7800f1799 ("ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails").
>>>>>> Jason, please take a look at fixing this, thanks!
>>>>> It looks to me the only solution is to revert that commit.
>>>> Do you really need this to be GFP_ATOMIC? I can see some callers are
>>>> under RCU read lock but can we perhaps do the allocation outside of this
>>>> section?
>>> If I understand the code correctly, the code would be called by XDP program (usually run inside a bh) which makes it hard to do this.
>>> Rethink of this, we can probably test gfp and not call kvmalloc if GFP_ATOMIC is set in __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc().
>> That would be one option indeed (probably useful in any case to make the API
>> more robust). Another one is to just not use GFP_ATOMIC in cpumap. Looking at
>> it, update can neither be called out of a BPF prog since prevented by verifier
>> nor under RCU reader side when updating this type of map from syscall path.
>> Jesper, any concrete reason we still need GFP_ATOMIC here?
> Allocations in cpumap (related to ptr_ring) should only be possible to
> be initiated through userspace via bpf-syscall.

I see verifier guarantees this.

> Thus, there isn't any
> reason for GFP_ATOMIC here.

Want me to send a patch to remove GFP_ATOMIC here?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-14 13:48    [W:0.048 / U:17.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site