On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 09:52:03AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 12/12/22 9:02 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:58 PM Benjamin Tissoires > > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Kind of a hack, but works for now: > > > > > > Instead of listening for any close of eBPF program, we now > > > decrement the refcount when we insert it in our internal > > > map of fd progs. > > > > > > This is safe to do because: > > > - we listen to any call of destructor of programs > > > - when a program is being destroyed, we disable it by removing > > > it from any RCU list used by any HID device (so it will never > > > be called) > > > - we then trigger a job to cleanup the prog fd map, but we overwrite > > > the removal of the elements to not do anything on the programs, just > > > remove the allocated space > > > > > > This is better than previously because we can remove the map of known > > > programs and their usage count. We now rely on the refcount of > > > bpf, which has greater chances of being accurate. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > So... I am a little bit embarrassed, but it turns out that this hack > > is not safe enough. > > > > If I compile the kernel with LLVM=1, the function > > bpf_prog_put_deferred() is optimized in a weird way: if we are not in > > irq, the function is inlined into __bpf_prog_put(), but if we are, the > > function is still kept around as it is called in a scheduled work > > item. > > > > This is something I completely overlooked: I assume that if the > > function would be inlined, the HID entrypoint BPF preloaded object > > would not be able to bind, thus deactivating HID-BPF safely. But if a > > function can be both inlined and not inlined, then I have no > > guarantees that my cleanup call will be called. Meaning that a HID > > device might believe there is still a bpf function to call. And things > > will get messy, with kernel crashes and others. > > You should not rely fentry to a static function. This is unstable > as compiler could inline it if that static function is called > directly. You could attach to a global function if it is not > compiled with lto. But now that the kernel does support LTO, how can you be sure this will always work properly? The code author does not know if LTO will kick in and optimize this away or not, that's the linker's job. thanks, greg k-h
