On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:08 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:05 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 6:04 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 12:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> +Arnaldo
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Our bpf fuzzer, a customized Syzkaller, triggered a lockdep warning in
> > >> >> > the bpf queue map in v5.15. Since queue_stack_maps.c has no major changes
> > >> >> > since v5.15, we think this should still exist in the latest kernel.
> > >> >> > The bug can be occasionally triggered, and we suspect one of the
> > >> >> > eBPF programs involved to be the following one. We also attached the lockdep
> > >> >> > warning at the end.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > #define DEFINE_BPF_MAP_NO_KEY(the_map, TypeOfMap, MapFlags,
> > >> >> > TypeOfValue, MaxEntries) \
> > >> >> > struct { \
> > >> >> > __uint(type, TypeOfMap); \
> > >> >> > __uint(map_flags, (MapFlags)); \
> > >> >> > __uint(max_entries, (MaxEntries)); \
> > >> >> > __type(value, TypeOfValue); \
> > >> >> > } the_map SEC(".maps");
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > DEFINE_BPF_MAP_NO_KEY(map_0, BPF_MAP_TYPE_QUEUE, 0 | BPF_F_WRONLY,
> > >> >> > struct_0, 162);
> > >> >> > SEC("perf_event")
> > >> >> > int func(struct bpf_perf_event_data *ctx) {
> > >> >> > char v0[96] = {};
> > >> >> > uint64_t v1 = 0;
> > >> >> > v1 = bpf_map_pop_elem(&map_0, v0);
> > >> >> > return 163819661;
> > >> >> > }
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The program is attached to the following perf event.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > struct perf_event_attr attr_type_hw = {
> > >> >> > .type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
> > >> >> > .config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES,
> > >> >> > .sample_freq = 50,
> > >> >> > .inherit = 1,
> > >> >> > .freq = 1,
> > >> >> > };
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > ================================WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > >> >> > 5.15.26+ #2 Not tainted
> > >> >> > --------------------------------
> > >> >> > inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
> > >> >> > syz-executor.5/19749 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> > >> >> > ffff88804c9fc198 (&qs->lock){..-.}-{2:2}, at: __queue_map_get+0x31/0x250
> > >> >> > {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
> > >> >> > lock_acquire+0x1a3/0x4b0
> > >> >> > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x48/0x60
> > >> >> > __queue_map_get+0x31/0x250
> > >> >> > bpf_prog_577904e86c81dead_func+0x12/0x4b4
> > >> >> > trace_call_bpf+0x262/0x5d0
> > >> >> > perf_trace_run_bpf_submit+0x91/0x1c0
> > >> >> > perf_trace_sched_switch+0x46c/0x700
> > >> >> > __schedule+0x11b5/0x24a0
> > >> >> > schedule+0xd4/0x270
> > >> >> > futex_wait_queue_me+0x25f/0x520
> > >> >> > futex_wait+0x1e0/0x5f0
> > >> >> > do_futex+0x395/0x1890
> > >> >> > __x64_sys_futex+0x1cb/0x480
> > >> >> > do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
> > >> >> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > >> >> > irq event stamp: 13640
> > >> >> > hardirqs last enabled at (13639): [<ffffffff95eb2bf4>]
> > >> >> > _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x40
> > >> >> > hardirqs last disabled at (13640): [<ffffffff95eb2d4d>]
> > >> >> > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x5d/0x60
> > >> >> > softirqs last enabled at (13464): [<ffffffff93e26de5>] __sys_bpf+0x3e15/0x4e80
> > >> >> > softirqs last disabled at (13462): [<ffffffff93e26da3>] __sys_bpf+0x3dd3/0x4e80
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > >> >> > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > CPU0
> > >> >> > ----
> > >> >> > lock(&qs->lock);
> > >> >> > <Interrupt>
> > >> >> > lock(&qs->lock);
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hmm, so that lock() uses raw_spin_lock_irqsave(), which *should* be
> > >> >> disabling interrupts entirely for the critical section. But I guess a
> > >> >> Perf hardware event can still trigger? Which seems like it would
> > >> >> potentially wreak havoc with lots of things, not just this queue map
> > >> >> function?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> No idea how to protect against this, though. Hoping Arnaldo knows? :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > The locking should probably be protected by a percpu integer counter,
> > >> > incremented and decremented before and after the lock is taken,
> > >> > respectively. If it is already non-zero, then -EBUSY should be
> > >> > returned. It is similar to what htab_lock_bucket protects against in
> > >> > hashtab.c.
> > >>
> > >> Ah, neat! Okay, seems straight-forward enough to replicate. Hsin, could
> > >> you please check if the patch below gets rid of the splat?
> > >
> > > Instead of adding all this complexity for the map that is so rarely used
> > > it's easier to disallow it perf_event prog types.
> > > Or add a single if (in_nmi()) return -EBUSY.
> >
> > Heh, I was actually thinking the "nmi-safe lock" thing might be
> > something that could be neatly encapsulated into the lock library
> > helpers. But OK, so you mean just something like the below, then?
>
> Yep.
> In bpf timers we do:
> if (in_nmi())
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> while in ringbuf we have:
> if (in_nmi()) {
> if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags))
> return NULL;
> } else {
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags);
> }
>
> I think both options are fine to use with queue/stack map.
> trylock approach is probably less drastic.
>
I tried the trylock approach as shown below. The fuzzer now
no longer triggers the lockdep warning.
-Hsin-Wei
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
index f9c734aaa990..ef95b796a0fa 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
@@ -103,7 +103,12 @@ static int __queue_map_get(struct bpf_map *map,
void *value, bool delete)
int err = 0;
void *ptr;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
+ if (in_nmi()) {
+ if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags))
+ return -EBUSY;
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
+ }
if (queue_stack_map_is_empty(qs)) {
memset(value, 0, qs->map.value_size);
@@ -133,7 +138,12 @@ static int __stack_map_get(struct bpf_map *map,
void *value, bool delete)
void *ptr;
u32 index;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
+ if (in_nmi()) {
+ if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags))
+ return -EBUSY;
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
+ }
if (queue_stack_map_is_empty(qs)) {
memset(value, 0, qs->map.value_size);
@@ -198,7 +208,12 @@ static int queue_stack_map_push_elem(struct
bpf_map *map, void *value,
if (flags & BPF_NOEXIST || flags > BPF_EXIST)
return -EINVAL;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, irq_flags);
+ if (in_nmi()) {
+ if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&qs->lock, irq_flags))
+ return -EBUSY;
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, irq_flags);
+ }
if (queue_stack_map_is_full(qs)) {
if (!replace) {
> > I'll send a proper patch for that later if no one objects (or beats me
> > to it) :)
> >
> > -Toke
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> > index 8d2ddcb7566b..138525424745 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> > @@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ static long __queue_map_get(struct bpf_map *map, void *value, bool delete)
> > int err = 0;
> > void *ptr;
> >
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
> >
> > if (queue_stack_map_is_empty(qs)) {
> > @@ -128,6 +131,9 @@ static long __stack_map_get(struct bpf_map *map, void *value, bool delete)
> > void *ptr;
> > u32 index;
> >
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, flags);
> >
> > if (queue_stack_map_is_empty(qs)) {
> > @@ -193,6 +199,9 @@ static long queue_stack_map_push_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *value,
> > if (flags & BPF_NOEXIST || flags > BPF_EXIST)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&qs->lock, irq_flags);
> >
> > if (queue_stack_map_is_full(qs)) {
