On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:56 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:52:18PM -0700, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 04/13, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:52:53PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:39 PM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 04/13, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:33 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commit 7d08c2c91171 ("bpf: Refactor BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY family of
> > > macros
> > > > > > > into functions") switched a bunch of BPF_PROG_RUN macros to inline
> > > > > > > routines. This changed the semantic a bit. Due to arguments
> > > expansion
> > > > > > > of macros, it used to be:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > array = rcu_dereference(cgrp->bpf.effective[atype]);
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, with with inline routines, we have:
> > > > > > > array_rcu = rcu_dereference(cgrp->bpf.effective[atype]);
> > > > > > > /* array_rcu can be kfree'd here */
> > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > array = rcu_dereference(array_rcu);
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > So subtle difference, wow...
> > > > >
> > > > > > But this open-coding of rcu_read_lock() seems very unfortunate as
> > > > > > well. Would making BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY back to a macro which only
> > > does
> > > > > > rcu lock/unlock and grabs effective array and then calls static
> > > inline
> > > > > > function be a viable solution?
> > > > >
> > > > > > #define BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS(array_rcu, ctx, run_prog,
> > > ret_flags) \
> > > > > > ({
> > > > > > int ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > ret =
> > > > > > __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS(rcu_dereference(array_rcu), ....);
> > > > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > > ret;
> > > > > > })
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > where __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS is what
> > > > > > BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS is today but with __rcu annotation
> > > dropped
> > > > > > (and no internal rcu stuff)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, that should work. But why do you think it's better to hide them?
> > > > > I find those automatic rcu locks deep in the call stack a bit obscure
> > > > > (when reasoning about sleepable vs non-sleepable contexts/bpf).
> > > > >
> > > > > I, as the caller, know that the effective array is rcu-managed (it
> > > > > has __rcu annotation) and it seems natural for me to grab rcu lock
> > > > > while work with it; I might grab it for some other things like cgroup
> > > > > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > If you think that having this more explicitly is better, I'm fine with
> > > > that as well. I thought a simpler invocation pattern would be good,
> > > > given we call bpf_prog_run_array variants in quite a lot of places. So
> > > > count me indifferent. I'm curious what others think.
> >
> > > Would it work if the bpf_prog_run_array_cg() directly takes the
> > > 'struct cgroup *cgrp' argument instead of the array ?
> > > bpf_prog_run_array_cg() should know what protection is needed
> > > to get member from the cgrp ptr. The sk call path should be able
> > > to provide a cgrp ptr. For current cgrp, pass NULL as the cgrp
> > > pointer and then current will be used in bpf_prog_run_array_cg().
> > > A rcu_read_lock() is needed anyway to get the current's cgrp
> > > and can be done together in bpf_prog_run_array_cg().
> >
> > > That there are only two remaining bpf_prog_run_array() usages
> > > from lirc and bpf_trace which are not too bad to have them
> > > directly do rcu_read_lock on their own struct ?
> >
> > From Andrii's original commit message:
> >
> > I think BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG would benefit from further refactoring to
> > accept
> > struct cgroup and enum bpf_attach_type instead of bpf_prog_array,
> > fetching
> > cgrp->bpf.effective[type] and RCU-dereferencing it internally. But that
> > required including include/linux/cgroup-defs.h, which I wasn't sure is
> > ok with
> > everyone.
> >
> > I guess including cgroup-defs.h/bpf-cgroup-defs.h into bpf.h might still
> > be somewhat problematic?
> >
> > But even if we pass the cgroup pointer, I'm assuming that this cgroup
> > pointer
> > is still rcu-managed, right? So the callers still have to rcu-lock.
> > However, in most places we don't care and do "cgrp =
> > sock_cgroup_ptr(&sk->sk_cgrp_data);"
> > but seems like it depends on the fact that sockets can't (yet?)
> > change their cgroup association and it's fine to not rcu-lock that
> > cgroup. Seems fragile, but ok.
> There is no __rcu tag in struct sock_cgroup_data, so presumably it
> won't change or a lock is needed ? seems to be the former.
>
> > It always stumbles me when I see:
> >
> > cgrp = sock_cgroup_ptr(&sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> > bpf_prog_run_array_cg_flags(cgrp.bpf->effective[atype], ...)
> >
> > But then, with current, it becomes:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > cgrp = task_dfl_cgroup(current);
> > bpf_prog_run_array_cg_flags(cgrp.bpf->effective[atype], ...)
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > Idk, I might be overthinking it. I'll try to see if including
> > bpf-cgroup-defs.h and passing cgroup_bpf is workable.
> yeah, passing cgroup_bpf and bpf-cgroup-defs.h is a better option.
+1. Daniel, would you be fine with this instead of explicit
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() everywhere?
