On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:09 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> One of our benchmarks running in (Google-internal) CI pushes data
> through the ringbuf faster than userspace is able to consume
> it. In this case it seems we're actually able to get >INT_MAX entries
> in a single ringbuf_buffer__consume call. ASAN detected that cnt
> overflows in this case.
>
> Fix by just setting a limit on the number of entries that can be
> consumed.
>
> Fixes: bf99c936f947 (libbpf: Add BPF ring buffer support)
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> index e7a8d847161f..445a21df0934 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> @@ -213,8 +213,8 @@ static int ringbuf_process_ring(struct ring* r)
> do {
> got_new_data = false;
> prod_pos = smp_load_acquire(r->producer_pos);
> - while (cons_pos < prod_pos) {
> + /* Don't read more than INT_MAX, or the return vale won't make sense. */
> + while (cons_pos < prod_pos && cnt < INT_MAX) {
ring_buffer__pool() is assumed to not return until all the enqueued
messages are consumed. That's the requirement for the "adaptive"
notification scheme to work properly. So this will break that and
cause the next ring_buffer__pool() to never wake up.
We could use __u64 internally and then cap it to INT_MAX on return
maybe? But honestly, this sounds like an artificial corner case, if
you are producing data faster than you can consume it and it goes
beyond INT_MAX, something is seriously broken in your application and
you have more important things to handle :)
> len_ptr = r->data + (cons_pos & r->mask);
> len = smp_load_acquire(len_ptr);
>
> --
> 2.31.1.498.g6c1eba8ee3d-goog
>
