On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 9:08 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Jun 21 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 1:56 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Same story than hid_hw_raw_requests:
> > >
> > > This allows to intercept and prevent or change the behavior of
> > > hid_hw_output_report() from a bpf program.
> > >
> > > The intent is to solve a couple of use case:
> > > - firewalling a HID device: a firewall can monitor who opens the hidraw
> > > nodes and then prevent or allow access to write operations on that
> > > hidraw node.
> > > - change the behavior of a device and emulate a new HID feature request
> > >
> > > The hook is allowed to be run as sleepable so it can itself call
> > > hid_hw_output_report(), which allows to "convert" one feature request into
> > > another or even call the feature request on a different HID device on the
> > > same physical device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Here checkpatch complains about:
> > > WARNING: use of RCU tasks trace is incorrect outside BPF or core RCU code
> > >
> > > However, we are jumping in BPF code, so I think this is correct, but I'd
> > > like to have the opinion on the BPF folks.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_dispatch.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_struct_ops.c | 1 +
> > > drivers/hid/hid-core.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > > drivers/hid/hidraw.c | 2 +-
> > > include/linux/hid.h | 3 ++-
> > > include/linux/hid_bpf.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_dispatch.c b/drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_dispatch.c
> > > index 8d6e08b7c42f..2a29a0625a3b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_dispatch.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/bpf/hid_bpf_dispatch.c
> > > @@ -111,6 +111,38 @@ int dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests(struct hid_device *hdev,
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests);
> > >
> > > +int dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report(struct hid_device *hdev,
> > > + __u8 *buf, u32 size, __u64 source,
> > > + bool from_bpf)
> > > +{
> > > + struct hid_bpf_ctx_kern ctx_kern = {
> > > + .ctx = {
> > > + .hid = hdev,
> > > + .allocated_size = size,
> > > + .size = size,
> > > + },
> > > + .data = buf,
> > > + .from_bpf = from_bpf,
> > > + };
> > > + struct hid_bpf_ops *e;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock_trace();
> > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(e, &hdev->bpf.prog_list, list) {
> > > + if (e->hid_hw_output_report) {
> > > + ret = e->hid_hw_output_report(&ctx_kern.ctx, source);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > +out:
> > > + rcu_read_unlock_trace();
> >
> > same question.
>
> re What is this for?:
>
> e->hid_hw_output_report might sleep, so using a plain rcu_read_lock()
> introduces warnings.
Ok, but just replacing rcu_read_lock() with rcu_read_lock_trace()
doesn't fix it.
rcu and rcu_tasks_trace are different.
If you're using call_rcu to wait for GP to free an element in that
list the thing will go wrong.
If you really need rcu life times here use srcu. It's a much better fit.
There will be srcu_read_lock() here, paired with call_srcu().
