On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:38 PM CEST, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 05/27, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:48 PM CEST, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > On 05/27, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> >> Add support for bpf() syscall subcommands that operate on
>> >> bpf_link (LINK_CREATE, LINK_UPDATE, OBJ_GET_INFO) for attach points tied to
>> >> network namespaces (that is flow dissector at the moment).
>> >
>> >> Link-based and prog-based attachment can be used interchangeably, but only
>> >> one can be in use at a time. Attempts to attach a link when a prog is
>> >> already attached directly, and the other way around, will be met with
>> >> -EBUSY.
>> >
>> >> Attachment of multiple links of same attach type to one netns is not
>> >> supported, with the intention to lift it when a use-case presents
>> >> itself. Because of that attempts to create a netns link, when one already
>> >> exists result in -E2BIG error, signifying that there is no space left for
>> >> another attachment.
>> >
>> >> Link-based attachments to netns don't keep a netns alive by holding a ref
>> >> to it. Instead links get auto-detached from netns when the latter is being
>> >> destroyed by a pernet pre_exit callback.
>> >
>> >> When auto-detached, link lives in defunct state as long there are open FDs
>> >> for it. -ENOLINK is returned if a user tries to update a defunct link.
>> >
>> >> Because bpf_link to netns doesn't hold a ref to struct net, special care is
>> >> taken when releasing the link. The netns might be getting torn down when
>> >> the release function tries to access it to detach the link.
>> >
>> >> To ensure the struct net object is alive when release function accesses it
>> >> we rely on the fact that cleanup_net(), struct net destructor, calls
>> >> synchronize_rcu() after invoking pre_exit callbacks. If auto-detach from
>> >> pre_exit happens first, link release will not attempt to access struct net.
>> >
>> >> Same applies the other way around, network namespace doesn't keep an
>> >> attached link alive because by not holding a ref to it. Instead bpf_links
>> >> to netns are RCU-freed, so that pernet pre_exit callback can safely access
>> >> and auto-detach the link when racing with link release/free.
>> >
>> > [..]
>> >> + rcu_read_lock();
>> >> for (type = 0; type < MAX_NETNS_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE; type++) {
>> >> - if (rcu_access_pointer(net->bpf.progs[type]))
>> >> + if (rcu_access_pointer(net->bpf.links[type]))
>> >> + bpf_netns_link_auto_detach(net, type);
>> >> + else if (rcu_access_pointer(net->bpf.progs[type]))
>> >> __netns_bpf_prog_detach(net, type);
>> >> }
>> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> > Aren't you doing RCU_INIT_POINTER in __netns_bpf_prog_detach?
>> > Is it allowed under rcu_read_load?
>
>> Yes, that's true. __netns_bpf_prog_detach does
>
>> RCU_INIT_POINTER(net->bpf.progs[type], NULL);
>
>> RCU read lock is here for the rcu_dereference() that happens in
>> bpf_netns_link_auto_detach (netns doesn't hold a ref to bpf_link):
>
>> /* Called with RCU read lock. */
>> static void __net_exit
>> bpf_netns_link_auto_detach(struct net *net, enum netns_bpf_attach_type type)
>> {
>> struct bpf_netns_link *net_link;
>> struct bpf_link *link;
>
>> link = rcu_dereference(net->bpf.links[type]);
>> if (!link)
>> return;
>> net_link = to_bpf_netns_link(link);
>> RCU_INIT_POINTER(net_link->net, NULL);
>> }
>
>> I've pulled it up, out of the loop, perhaps too eagerly and just made it
>> confusing, considering we're iterating over a 1-item array :-)
>
>> Now, I'm also doing RCU_INIT_POINTER on the *contents of bpf_link* in
>> bpf_netns_link_auto_detach. Is that allowed? I'm not sure, that bit is
>> hazy to me.
>
>> There are no concurrent writers to net_link->net, just readers, i.e.
>> bpf_netns_link_release(). And I know bpf_link won't be freed until the
>> grace period elapses.
>
>> sparse and CONFIG_PROVE_RCU are not shouting at me, but please do if it
>> doesn't hold up or make sense.
>
>> I certainly can push the rcu_read_lock() down into
>> bpf_netns_link_auto_detach().
> I think it would be much nicer if you push them down to preserve the
> assumption that nothing is modified under read lock and you flip
> the pointers only when holding the mutexes.
I certainly see how that would save some head-scratching. Might be
doable with grabbing a temporary reference to struct net/struct
bpf_link. Please see the code snippet below.
>
> I'll do another pass on this patch, I think I don't understand a bunch
> of bits where you do:
>
> mutex_lock
> rcu_read_lock -> why? you're already in the update section, can use
> rcu_dereference_protected
> ...
> rcu_read_unlock
> mutex_unlock
The rcu_read_lock is to get the grace-period guarantee for the value
(struct net) we access by dereferencing RCU protected pointer
(bpf_netns_link.net).
While mutex_lock is to serialize updates to values within struct
net. That is net->bpf.progs or net->bpf.links.
The locking is done in reverse order because I cannot grab the mutex
while in RCU read-side critical section.
If I was holding a reference to struct net, I would not need to be
inside an RCU read-side critical section to access it. (This is how
bpf_cgroup_link does it when accessing cgroup->bpf.)
One thought I had is that I could rearrange sychnronization so that we
try to grab a reference to struct net when we need to modify it:
rcu_read_lock();
net = rcu_dereference(to_bpf_netns_link(link)->net);
if (net)
net = maybe_get_net(net);
rcu_read_unlock();
if (!net)
return; /* netns is dead */
mutex_lock(&netns_bpf_mutex);
rcu_assign_pointer(net->bpf.progs[type], link->prog);
rcu_assign_pointer(net->bpf.links[type], link);
mutex_unlock(&netns_bpf_mutex);
put_net(net);
That seems be easier to reason about, no?
> But I'll post those comments inline shortly.
Thanks. Will be better to discuss in context.
