Re: [RFC nf-next 1/2] netfilter: bpf: support prog update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 12/14/23 6:24 AM, Florian Westphal wrote:
D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To support the prog update, we need to ensure that the prog seen
within the hook is always valid. Considering that hooks are always
protected by rcu_read_lock(), which provide us the ability to use a
new RCU-protected context to access the prog.

Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
  1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
index e502ec0..918c470 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
@@ -8,17 +8,11 @@
  #include <net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.h>
  #include <uapi/linux/netfilter_ipv4.h>
-static unsigned int nf_hook_run_bpf(void *bpf_prog, struct sk_buff *skb,
-				    const struct nf_hook_state *s)
+struct bpf_nf_hook_ctx
  {
-	const struct bpf_prog *prog = bpf_prog;
-	struct bpf_nf_ctx ctx = {
-		.state = s,
-		.skb = skb,
-	};
-
-	return bpf_prog_run(prog, &ctx);
-}
+	struct bpf_prog *prog;
+	struct rcu_head rcu;
+};
I don't understand the need for this structure.  AFAICS bpf_prog_put()
will always release the program via call_rcu()?

If it doesn't, we are probably already in trouble as-is without this
patch, I don't think anything that prevents us from ending up calling already
released bpf prog, or releasing it while another cpu is still running it
if bpf_prog_put releases the actual underlying prog instantly.

A BPF expert could confirm bpf-prog-put-is-call-rcu.

Hi Florian,

I must admit that I did not realize that bpf_prog is released
under RCU ...

  struct bpf_nf_link {
  	struct bpf_link link;
@@ -26,8 +20,59 @@ struct bpf_nf_link {
  	struct net *net;
  	u32 dead;
  	const struct nf_defrag_hook *defrag_hook;
+	/* protect link update in parallel */
+	struct mutex update_lock;
+	struct bpf_nf_hook_ctx __rcu *hook_ctx;
What kind of replacements-per-second rate are you aiming for?
I think

static DEFINE_MUTEX(bpf_nf_mutex);

is enough.

I'm okay with that.


Then bpf_nf_link gains

	struct bpf_prog __rcu *prog

and possibly a trailing struct rcu_head, see below.

Yes, that's what we need.

+static void bpf_nf_hook_ctx_free_rcu(struct bpf_nf_hook_ctx *hook_ctx)
+{
+	call_rcu(&hook_ctx->rcu, __bpf_nf_hook_ctx_free_rcu);
+}
Don't understand the need for call_rcu either, see below.

+static unsigned int nf_hook_run_bpf(void *bpf_link, struct sk_buff *skb,
+				    const struct nf_hook_state *s)
+{
+	const struct bpf_nf_link *link = bpf_link;
+	struct bpf_nf_hook_ctx *hook_ctx;
+	struct bpf_nf_ctx ctx = {
+		.state = s,
+		.skb = skb,
+	};
+
+	hook_ctx = rcu_dereference(link->hook_ctx);
This could then just rcu_deref link->prog.

+	return bpf_prog_run(hook_ctx->prog, &ctx);
+}
+
  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV4) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV6)
  static const struct nf_defrag_hook *
  get_proto_defrag_hook(struct bpf_nf_link *link,
@@ -120,6 +165,10 @@ static void bpf_nf_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
  	if (!cmpxchg(&nf_link->dead, 0, 1)) {
  		nf_unregister_net_hook(nf_link->net, &nf_link->hook_ops);
  		bpf_nf_disable_defrag(nf_link);
+		/* Wait for outstanding hook to complete before the
+		 * link gets released.
+		 */
+		synchronize_rcu();
  	}
Could you convert bpf_nf_link_dealloc to release via kfree_rcu instead?

Got it.
@@ -162,7 +212,42 @@ static int bpf_nf_link_fill_link_info(const struct bpf_link *link,
  static int bpf_nf_link_update(struct bpf_link *link, struct bpf_prog *new_prog,
  			      struct bpf_prog *old_prog)
  {
-	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+	struct bpf_nf_link *nf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_nf_link, link);
+	struct bpf_nf_hook_ctx *hook_ctx;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	mutex_lock(&nf_link->update_lock);
+
I think you need to check link->dead here too.

Got that.

+	/* bpf_nf_link_release() ensures that after its execution, there will be
+	 * no ongoing or upcoming execution of nf_hook_run_bpf() within any context.
+	 * Therefore, within nf_hook_run_bpf(), the link remains valid at all times."
+	 */
+	link->hook_ops.priv = link;
ATM we only need to make sure the bpf prog itself stays alive until after
all concurrent rcu critical sections have completed.

After this change, struct bpf_link gets passed instead, so we need to
keep that alive too.

Which works with synchronize_rcu, sure, but that seems a bit overkill here.

Got it! Thank you very much for your suggestion.
I will address those issues you mentioned in the next version.


Best wishes,
D. Wythe





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux