lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/6] bpf: prevent deadlock from recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete]
Date


> On Feb 22, 2021, at 10:21 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:23 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> BPF helpers bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] could hold two locks:
>> bpf_local_storage_map_bucket->lock and bpf_local_storage->lock. Calling
>> these helpers from fentry/fexit programs on functions in bpf_*_storage.c
>> may cause deadlock on either locks.
>>
>> Prevent such deadlock with a per cpu counter, bpf_task_storage_busy, which
>> is similar to bpf_prog_active. We need this counter to be global, because
>> the two locks here belong to two different objects: bpf_local_storage_map
>> and bpf_local_storage. If we pick one of them as the owner of the counter,
>> it is still possible to trigger deadlock on the other lock. For example,
>> if bpf_local_storage_map owns the counters, it cannot prevent deadlock
>> on bpf_local_storage->lock when two maps are used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -109,7 +136,9 @@ static void *bpf_pid_task_storage_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + bpf_task_storage_lock();
>> sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, true);
>> + bpf_task_storage_unlock();
>> put_pid(pid);
>> return sdata ? sdata->data : NULL;
>> out:
>> @@ -141,8 +170,10 @@ static int bpf_pid_task_storage_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + bpf_task_storage_lock();
>> sdata = bpf_local_storage_update(
>> task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value, map_flags);
>
> this should probably be container_of() instead of casting

bpf_task_storage.c uses casting in multiple places. How about we fix it in a
separate patch?

Thanks,
Song

>
>> + bpf_task_storage_unlock();
>>
>> err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(sdata);
>> out:
>> @@ -185,7 +216,9 @@ static int bpf_pid_task_storage_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + bpf_task_storage_lock();
>> err = task_storage_delete(task, map);
>> + bpf_task_storage_unlock();
>> out:
>> put_pid(pid);
>> return err;
>
> [...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-23 08:19    [W:0.074 / U:17.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site