lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC patch 00/19] bpf: Make BPF and PREEMPT_RT co-exist
Date
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:39:17 +0100
>
>> This is a follow up to the initial patch series which David posted a
>> while ago:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191207.160357.828344895192682546.davem@davemloft.net/
>>
>> which was (while non-functional on RT) a good starting point for further
>> investigations.
>
> This looks really good after a cursory review, thanks for doing this week.
>
> I was personally unaware of the pre-allocation rules for MAPs used by
> tracing et al. And that definitely shapes how this should be handled.

Hmm. I just noticed that my analysis only holds for PERF events. But
that's broken on mainline already.

Assume the following simplified callchain:

kmalloc() from regular non BPF context
cache empty
freelist empty
lock(zone->lock);
tracepoint or kprobe
BPF()
update_elem()
lock(bucket)
kmalloc()
cache empty
freelist empty
lock(zone->lock); <- DEADLOCK

So really, preallocation _must_ be enforced for all variants of
intrusive instrumentation. There is no if and but, it's simply mandatory
as all intrusive instrumentation has to follow the only sensible
principle: KISS = Keep It Safe and Simple.

The above is a perfectly valid scenario and works with perf and tracing,
so it has to work with BPF in the same safe way.

I might be missing some magic enforcement of that, but I got lost in the
maze.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-14 19:38    [W:0.167 / U:1.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site