On 5/20/23 2:47 AM, Ze Gao wrote:
Hi Jiri,
Would you like to consider to add rcu_is_watching check in
to solve this from the viewpoint of kprobe_multi_link_prog_run
itself? And accounting of missed runs can be added as well
to imporve observability.
Regards,
Ze
-----------------
From 29fd3cd713e65461325c2703cf5246a6fae5d4fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ze Gao <zegao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 17:32:05 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] bpf: kprobe_multi runs bpf progs only when rcu_is_watching
From the perspective of kprobe_multi_link_prog_run, any traceable
functions can be attached while bpf progs need specical care and
ought to be under rcu protection. To solve the likely rcu lockdep
warns once for good, when (future) functions in idle path were
attached accidentally, we better paying some cost to check at least
in kernel-side, and return when rcu is not watching, which helps
to avoid any unpredictable results.
kprobe_multi/fprobe share the same set of attachments with fentry.
Currently, fentry does not filter with !rcu_is_watching, maybe
because this is an extreme corner case. Not sure whether it is
worthwhile or not.
Maybe if you can give a concrete example (e.g., attachment point)
with current code base to show what the issue you encountered and
it will make it easier to judge whether adding !rcu_is_watching()
is necessary or not.
Signed-off-by: Ze Gao <zegao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 9a050e36dc6c..3e6ea7274765 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -2622,7 +2622,7 @@ kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
int err;
- if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
+ if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1 || !rcu_is_watching())) {
err = 0;
goto out;
}
