On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:02 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:51 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:05 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 03:26:46AM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > > > struct bpf_local_storage_data *
> > > > > bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> > > > > - void *value, u64 map_flags)
> > > > > + void *value, u64 map_flags, gfp_t mem_flags)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct bpf_local_storage_data *old_sdata = NULL;
> > > > > struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem;
> > > > > struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage;
> > > > > unsigned long flags;
> > > > > - int err;
> > > > > + int err, charge_err;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* BPF_EXIST and BPF_NOEXIST cannot be both set */
> > > > > if (unlikely((map_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK) > BPF_EXIST) ||
> > > > > @@ -373,11 +373,11 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> > > > > if (err)
> > > > > return ERR_PTR(err);
> > > > >
> > > > > - selem = bpf_selem_alloc(smap, owner, value, true);
> > > > > + selem = bpf_selem_alloc(smap, owner, value, mem_flags);
> > > > > if (!selem)
> > > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > >
> > > > > - err = bpf_local_storage_alloc(owner, smap, selem);
> > > > > + err = bpf_local_storage_alloc(owner, smap, selem, mem_flags);
> > > > > if (err) {
> > > > > kfree(selem);
> > > > > mem_uncharge(smap, owner, smap->elem_size);
> > > > > @@ -404,6 +404,19 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Since mem_flags can be non-atomic, we need to do the memory
> > > > > + * allocation outside the spinlock.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * There are a few cases where it is permissible for the memory charge
> > > > > + * and allocation to fail (eg if BPF_F_LOCK is set and a local storage
> > > > > + * value already exists, we can swap values without needing an
> > > > > + * allocation), so in the case of a failure here, continue on and see
> > > > > + * if the failure is relevant.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + charge_err = mem_charge(smap, owner, smap->elem_size);
> > > > > + selem = bpf_map_kzalloc(&smap->map, smap->elem_size,
> > > > > + mem_flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > > > +
> > > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&local_storage->lock, flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Recheck local_storage->list under local_storage->lock */
> > > > > @@ -425,25 +438,37 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> > > > > if (old_sdata && (map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK)) {
> > > > > copy_map_value_locked(&smap->map, old_sdata->data, value,
> > > > > false);
> > > > > - selem = SELEM(old_sdata);
> > > > > - goto unlock;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local_storage->lock, flags);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!charge_err)
> > > > > + mem_uncharge(smap, owner, smap->elem_size);
> > > > > + kfree(selem);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return old_sdata;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!old_sdata && charge_err) {
> > > > > + /* If there is no existing local storage value, then this means
> > > > > + * we needed the charge to succeed. We must make sure this did not
> > > > > + * return an error.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Please note that if an existing local storage value exists, then
> > > > > + * it doesn't matter if the charge failed because we can just
> > > > > + * "reuse" the charge from the existing local storage element.
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > But we did allocate a new element which was unaccounted for, even if
> > > > it was temporarily.
> > > > [for the short period of time till we freed the old element]
> > > >
> > > > Martin, is this something we are okay with?
> > > It is the behavior today already. Take a look at the bpf_selem_alloc(...., !sold_data)
> > > and the later "if (old_sdata) { /* ... */ bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock(..., false); }"
> > > Most things happen in a raw_spin_lock, so this should be very brief moment.
> > > Not perfect but should be fine.
> > >
> > > If it always error out on charge failure, it will risk the case that the
> > > userspace's syscall will unnecessary be failed on mem charging while it only
> > > tries to replace the old_sdata.
> > >
> > > If the concern is the increased chance of brief moment of unaccounted memory
> > > from the helper side now because GFP_KERNEL is from the helper only,
> > > another option that came up to my mind is to decide to do the alloc before or
> > > after raw_spin_lock_irqsave() based on mem_flags. The GFP_KERNEL here is only
> > > calling from the bpf helper side and it is always done with BPF_NOEXIST
> > > because the bpf helper has already done a lookup, so it should
> > > always charge success first and then alloc.
> > >
> > > Something like this that drafted on top of this patch. Untested code:
> >
> > I think this looks okay. One minor comment below:
> >
> > >
> > > diff --git c/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> > > index 092a1ac772d7..b48beb57fe6e 100644
> > > --- c/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> > > +++ w/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static bool selem_linked_to_map(const struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> > >
> > > struct bpf_local_storage_elem *
> > > bpf_selem_alloc(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap, void *owner,
> > > - void *value, bool charge_mem)
> > > + void *value, bool charge_mem, gfp_t mem_flags)
> > > {
> > > struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem;
> > >
> > > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ bpf_selem_alloc(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap, void *owner,
> > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > selem = bpf_map_kzalloc(&smap->map, smap->elem_size,
> > > - GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > + mem_flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > if (selem) {
> > > if (value)
> > > memcpy(SDATA(selem)->data, value, smap->map.value_size);
> > >
> > > @@ -404,6 +408,12 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (mem_flags == GFP_KERNEL) {
> >
> > It seems like what this check really is (and similarly for the other
> > mem_flags based check you have below.
> >
> > "am I called from a sleepable helper"
> >
> > and I wonder if, instead of the verifier setting mem_flags, could set
> > a boolean "sleepable_helper_call"
> > which might be more useful and readable and is more relevant to the
> > check that the verifier is
> > performing "if (env->prog->aux->sleepable)"
>
> I think you're proposing to pass a boolean flag
> into the helper instead of gfp_t?
> I think gfp_t is cleaner.
> For example we might allow local storage access under bpf_spin_lock
> or other critical sections.
> Passing boolean flag of the prog state is not equivalent
> to the availability of gfp at the callsite inside bpf prog code.
Ah yes, then using gfp_t makes sense as we may have other use cases.
I think we can follow up with the changes Martin suggested separately as
the current behaviour is essentially the same.
In any case, you can add my:
Acked-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
