lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] bpf: syscall: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in map_update_elem()
From
Date


On 2018/8/10 22:22, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 04:07 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> The kernel may sleep with holding a rcu read lock.
>>
>> The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16 are:
>>
>> [FUNC] kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>> kernel/kthread.c, 283: kmalloc in __kthread_create_on_node
>> kernel/kthread.c, 365: __kthread_create_on_node in kthread_create_on_node
>> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c, 368: kthread_create_on_node in __cpu_map_entry_alloc
>> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c, 490: __cpu_map_entry_alloc in cpu_map_update_elem
>> kernel/bpf/syscall.c, 724: [FUNC_PTR]cpu_map_update_elem in map_update_elem
>> kernel/bpf/syscall.c, 723: rcu_read_lock in map_update_elem
>>
>> Note that [FUNC_PTR] means a function pointer call is used.
>>
>> I do not find a good way to fix it, so I only report.
>> This is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC).
> Thanks for the report Jia-Ju! In the map_update_elem() from syscall
> path there's a check map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP, where we
> call the cpumap's map->ops->map_update_elem() while /not/ being under
> rcu_read_lock() as in other cases, so looks okay to me. Could you point
> out the case for being under rcu_read_lock() more specifically which
> the tool found?

Thanks for your reply :)
My tool cannot accurately track the case of map->map_type at present...

According to my code review, there is a indeed check on line 697 in
Linux-4.16:
else if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP) {
err = map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, attr->flags);
goto out;
}
But there is a call to map->ops->map_update_elem() that is under
rcu_read_lock on line 724:
rcu_read_lock();
err = map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, attr->flags);
rcu_read_unlock();

So I think if map->map_type is not equal to BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP,
map->ops->map_update_elem() can still be called under rcu_read_lock, is
it right?


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-11 03:59    [W:0.031 / U:18.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site