Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/3] bpf: Don't reinit map value in prealloc_lru_pop

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:29 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:30:32PM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > The LRU map that is preallocated may have its elements reused while
> > another program holds a pointer to it from bpf_map_lookup_elem. Hence,
> > only check_and_free_fields is appropriate when the element is being
> > deleted, as it ensures proper synchronization against concurrent access
> > of the map value. After that, we cannot call check_and_init_map_value
> > again as it may rewrite bpf_spin_lock, bpf_timer, and kptr fields while
> > they can be concurrently accessed from a BPF program.
> >
> > This is safe to do as when the map entry is deleted, concurrent access
> > is protected against by check_and_free_fields, i.e. an existing timer
> > would be freed, and any existing kptr will be released by it. The
> > program can create further timers and kptrs after check_and_free_fields,
> > but they will eventually be released once the preallocated items are
> > freed on map destruction, even if the item is never reused again. Hence,
> > the deleted item sitting in the free list can still have resources
> > attached to it, and they would never leak.
> >
> > With spin_lock, we never touch the field at all on delete or update, as
> > we may end up modifying the state of the lock. Since the verifier
> > ensures that a bpf_spin_lock call is always paired with bpf_spin_unlock
> > call, the program will eventually release the lock so that on reuse the
> > new user of the value can take the lock.
> The bpf_spin_lock's verifier description makes sense.  Note that
> the lru map does not support spin lock for now.

ahh. then it's not a bpf tree material.
It's a minor cleanup for bpf-next?

> >
> > Essentially, for the preallocated case, we must assume that the map
> > value may always be in use by the program, even when it is sitting in
> > the freelist, and handle things accordingly, i.e. use proper
> > synchronization inside check_and_free_fields, and never reinitialize the
> > special fields when it is reused on update.
> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux