On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 12:18:26AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 09:53:53AM -0700, Joe Damato wrote:
> > Greetings:
> >
> > (I am reposting this question after 2 days and to a wider audience
> > as I didn't hear back [1]; my apologies it just seemed like a
> > possible bug slipped into 6.10-rc1 and I wanted to bring attention
> > to it before 6.10 is released.)
> >
> > While testing some unrelated networking code with Martin Karsten (cc'd on
> > this email) we discovered what appears to be some sort of overflow bug in
> > bpf.
> >
> > git bisect suggests that commit f11f10bfa1ca ("perf/bpf: Call BPF handler
> > directly, not through overflow machinery") is the first commit where the
> > (I assume) buggy behavior appears.
>
> heya, nice catch!
>
> I can reproduce.. it seems that after f11f10bfa1ca we allow to run tracepoint
> program as perf event overflow program
>
> bpftrace's bpf program returns 1 which means that perf_trace_run_bpf_submit
> will continue to execute perf_tp_event and then:
also bpftrace should perhaps return 0 in tracepoint programs
and cut the extra processing in any case
cc-ing Viktor
jirka
>
> perf_tp_event
> perf_swevent_event
> __perf_event_overflow
> bpf_overflow_handler
>
> bpf_overflow_handler then executes event->prog on wrong arguments, which
> results in wrong 'work' data in bpftrace output
>
> I can 'fix' that by checking the event type before running the program like
> in the change below, but I wonder there's probably better fix
>
> Kyle, any idea?
>
> >
> > Running the following on my machine as of the commit mentioned above:
> >
> > bpftrace -e 'tracepoint:napi:napi_poll { @[args->work] = count(); }'
> >
> > while simultaneously transferring data to the target machine (in my case, I
> > scp'd a 100MiB file of zeros in a loop) results in very strange output
> > (snipped):
> >
> > @[11]: 5
> > @[18]: 5
> > @[-30590]: 6
> > @[10]: 7
> > @[14]: 9
> >
> > It does not seem that the driver I am using on my test system (mlx5) would
> > ever return a negative value from its napi poll function and likewise for
> > the driver Martin is using (mlx4).
> >
> > As such, I don't think it is possible for args->work to ever be a large
> > negative number, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something?
> >
> > I would like to note that commit 14e40a9578b7 ("perf/bpf: Remove #ifdef
> > CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL from struct perf_event members") does not exhibit this
> > behavior and the output seems reasonable on my test system. Martin confirms
> > the same for both commits on his test system, which uses different hardware
> > than mine.
> >
> > Is this an expected side effect of this change? I would expect it is not
> > and that the output is a bug of some sort. My apologies in that I am not
> > particularly familiar with the bpf code and cannot suggest what the root
> > cause might be.
> >
> > If it is not a bug:
> > 1. Sorry for the noise :(
>
> your report is great, thanks a lot!
>
> jirka
>
>
> > 2. Can anyone suggest what this output might mean or how the
> > script run above should be modified? AFAIK this is a fairly
> > common bpftrace that many folks run for profiling/debugging
> > purposes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/Zo64cpho2cFQiOeE@LQ3V64L9R2/T/#u
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index c6a6936183d5..0045dc754ef7 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -9580,7 +9580,7 @@ static int bpf_overflow_handler(struct perf_event *event,
> goto out;
> rcu_read_lock();
> prog = READ_ONCE(event->prog);
> - if (prog) {
> + if (prog && prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) {
> perf_prepare_sample(data, event, regs);
> ret = bpf_prog_run(prog, &ctx);
> }
