> On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 7:35 PM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 5:49 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > get_func_ip() */
> > > > > - tstamp_type_access:1; /* Accessed __sk_buff->tstamp_type */
> > > > > + tstamp_type_access:1, /* Accessed __sk_buff->tstamp_type */
> > > > > + valid_id:1; /* Is bpf_prog::aux::__id valid? */
> > > > > enum bpf_prog_type type; /* Type of BPF program */
> > > > > enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type; /* For some prog types */
> > > > > u32 len; /* Number of filter blocks */
> > > > > @@ -1688,6 +1689,12 @@ void bpf_prog_inc(struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > > > > struct bpf_prog * __must_check bpf_prog_inc_not_zero(struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > > > > void bpf_prog_put(struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline u32 bpf_prog_get_id(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (WARN(!prog->valid_id, "Attempting to use an invalid eBPF program"))
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + return prog->aux->__id;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > I'm still missing why we need to have this WARN and have a check at all.
> > > > IIUC, we're actually too eager in resetting the id to 0, and need to
> > > > keep that stale id around at least for perf/audit.
> > > > Why not have a flag only to protect against double-idr_remove
> > > > bpf_prog_free_id and keep the rest as is?
> > > > Which places are we concerned about that used to report id=0 but now
> > > > would report stale id?
> > >
> > > What double-idr_remove are you concerned about?
> > > bpf_prog_by_id() is doing bpf_prog_inc_not_zero
> > > while __bpf_prog_put just dropped it to zero.
> >
> > (traveling, sending from an untested setup, hope it reaches everyone)
> >
> > There is a call to bpf_prog_free_id from __bpf_prog_offload_destroy which
> > tries to make offloaded program disappear from the idr when the netdev
> > goes offline. So I'm assuming that '!prog->aux->id' check in bpf_prog_free_id
> > is to handle that case where we do bpf_prog_free_id much earlier than the
> > rest of the __bpf_prog_put stuff.
>
> That remove was done in
> commit ad8ad79f4f60 ("bpf: offload: free program id when device disappears")
> Back in 2017 there was no bpf audit and no
> PERF_BPF_EVENT_PROG_LOAD/UNLOAD events.
>
> The removal of id made sense back then to avoid showing this
> 'useless' orphaned offloaded prog in 'bpftool prog show',
> but with addition of perf load/unload and audit it was no longer
> correct to zero out ID in a prog which refcnt is still not zero.
>
> So we should simply remove bpf_prog_free_id from __bpf_prog_offload_destroy.
> There won't be any adverse effect other than bpftool prog show
> will show orphaned progs.
SGTM, that would simplify everything..
> >
> > > Maybe just move bpf_prog_free_id() into bpf_prog_put_deferred()
> > > after perf_event_bpf_event and bpf_audit_prog ?
> > > Probably can remove the obsolete do_idr_lock bool flag as
> > > separate patch?
> >
> > +1 on removing do_idr_lock separately.
> >
> > > Much simpler fix and no code churn.
> > > Both valid_id and saved_id approaches have flaws.
> >
> > Given the __bpf_prog_offload_destroy path above, we still probably need
> > some flag to indicate that the id has been already removed from the idr?
>
> No. ID should be valid until prog went through perf and audit unload
> events. Don't know about audit, but for perf it's essential to have
> valid ID otherwise perf record will not be able to properly associate events.
