Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 00/15] bpf: BPF specific memory allocator, UAPI in particular

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

 



On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 02:26, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 5:20 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 01:45, Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:18 PM Delyan Kratunov <delyank@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not very precise, but until those maps are gone it delays
> > > > > release of the allocator (we can empty all percpu caches to save
> > > > > memory once bpf_map pinning the allocator is gone, because allocations
> > > > > are not going to be served). But it allows unit_free to be relatively
> > > > > less costly as long as those 'candidate' maps are around.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we considered this but it's much easier to get to pathological behaviors, by
> > > > just loading and unloading programs that can access an allocator in a loop. The
> > > > freelists being empty help but it's still quite easy to hold a lot of memory for
> > > > nothing.
> > > >
> > > > The pointer walk was proposed to prune most such pathological cases while still being
> > > > conservative enough to be easy to implement. Only races with the pointer walk can
> > > > extend the lifetime unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > I'm getting lost in this thread.
> > >
> > > Here is my understanding so far:
> > > We don't free kernel kptrs from map in release_uref,
> > > but we should for local kptrs, since such objs are
> > > not much different from timers.
> > > So release_uref will xchg all such kptrs and free them
> > > into the allocator without touching allocator's refcnt.
> > > So there is no concurrency issue that Kumar was concerned about.
> >
> > Haven't really thought through whether this will fix the concurrent
> > kptr swap problem, but then with this I think you need:
> > - New helper bpf_local_kptr_xchg(map, map_value, kptr)
>
> no. why?
> current bpf_kptr_xchg(void *map_value, void *ptr) should work.
> The verifier knows map ptr from map_value.
>
> > - Associating map_uid of map, map_value
> > - Always doing atomic_inc_not_zero(map->usercnt) for each call to
> > local_kptr_xchg
> > 1 and 2 because of inner_maps, 3 because of release_uref.
> > But maybe not a deal breaker?
>
> No run-time refcnts.

How is future kptr_xchg prevented for the map after its usercnt drops to 0?
If we don't check it at runtime we can xchg in non-NULL kptr after
release_uref callback.
For timer you are taking timer spinlock and reading map->usercnt in
timer_set_callback.

Or do you mean this case can never happen with your approach?

> All possible allocators will be added to map->used_allocators
> at prog load time and allocator's refcnt incremented.
> At run-time bpf_kptr_xchg(map_value, ptr) will be happening
> with an allocator A which was added to that map->used_allocators
> already.



[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