Re: [PATCH] bpf: defer printk() inside __bpf_prog_run()

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

 



On 2024/06/26 4:32, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-25, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> syzbot is reporting circular locking dependency inside __bpf_prog_run(),
>>>>>> for fault injection calls printk() despite rq lock is already held.
> 
> If you want to add printk_deferred_enter() it
> probably should be in should_fail_ex(). Not here.
> We will not be wrapping all bpf progs this way.

should_fail_ex() is just an instance.
Three months ago you said "bpf never calls printk()" at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAADnVQLmLMt2bF9aAB26dtBCvy2oUFt+AAKDRgTTrc7Xk_zxJQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ,
but bpf does indirectly call printk() due to debug functionality.

We will be able to stop wrapping with printk_deferred_enter() after the printk
rework completes ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZXBCB2Gv1O-1-T6f@alley ). But we
can't predict how long we need to wait for all console drivers to get converted.

Until the printk rework completes, it is responsibility of the caller to guard
whatever possible printk() with rq lock already held. If you think that only
individual function that may call printk() (e.g. should_fail_ex()) should be
wrapped, just saying "We will not be wrapping all bpf progs this way" does not
help, for we need to scatter migrate_{disable,enable}() overhead as well as
printk_deferred_{enter,exit}() to individual function despite majority of callers
do not call e.g. should_fail_ex() with rq lock already held. Only who needs to
call e.g. should_fail_ex() with rq lock already held should pay the cost. In this
case, the one who should pay the cost is tracing hooks that are called with rq
lock already held. I don't think that it is reasonable to add overhead to all
users because tracing hooks might not be enabled or bpf program might not call
e.g. should_fail_ex().

If you have a method that we can predict whether e.g. should_fail_ex() is called,
you can wrap only bpf progs that call e.g. should_fail_ex(). But it is your role
to maintain list of functions that might trigger printk(). I think that you don't
want such burden (as well as all users don't want burden/overhead of adding
migrate_{disable,enable}() only for the sake of bpf subsystem).





[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