On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 07:26:12PM CET, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:14 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/3/23 10:30 PM, Hou Tao wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 1/4/2023 2:10 PM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 1/3/23 5:47 AM, Hou Tao wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On 1/2/2023 2:48 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 12/31/22 5:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:11:45PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote: > > >>>>>> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The patchset tries to fix the problems found when checking how htab map > > >>>>>> handles element reuse in bpf memory allocator. The immediate reuse of > > >>>>>> freed elements may lead to two problems in htab map: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> (1) reuse will reinitialize special fields (e.g., bpf_spin_lock) in > > >>>>>> htab map value and it may corrupt lookup procedure with BFP_F_LOCK > > >>>>>> flag which acquires bpf-spin-lock during value copying. The > > >>>>>> corruption of bpf-spin-lock may result in hard lock-up. > > >>>>>> (2) lookup procedure may get incorrect map value if the found element is > > >>>>>> freed and then reused. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Because the type of htab map elements are the same, so problem #1 can be > > >>>>>> fixed by supporting ctor in bpf memory allocator. The ctor initializes > > >>>>>> these special fields in map element only when the map element is newly > > >>>>>> allocated. If it is just a reused element, there will be no > > >>>>>> reinitialization. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Instead of adding the overhead of ctor callback let's just > > >>>>> add __GFP_ZERO to flags in __alloc(). > > >>>>> That will address the issue 1 and will make bpf_mem_alloc behave just > > >>>>> like percpu_freelist, so hashmap with BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC and default > > >>>>> will behave the same way. > > >>>> > > >>>> Patch https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220809213033.24147-3-memxor@xxxxxxxxx/ > > >>>> tried to address a similar issue for lru hash table. > > >>>> Maybe we need to do similar things after bpf_mem_cache_alloc() for > > >>>> hash table? > > >>> IMO ctor or __GFP_ZERO will fix the issue. Did I miss something here ? > > >> > > >> The following is my understanding: > > >> in function alloc_htab_elem() (hashtab.c), we have > > >> > > >> if (is_map_full(htab)) > > >> if (!old_elem) > > >> /* when map is full and update() is replacing > > >> * old element, it's ok to allocate, since > > >> * old element will be freed immediately. > > >> * Otherwise return an error > > >> */ > > >> return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG); > > >> inc_elem_count(htab); > > >> l_new = bpf_mem_cache_alloc(&htab->ma); > > >> if (!l_new) { > > >> l_new = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > >> goto dec_count; > > >> } > > >> check_and_init_map_value(&htab->map, > > >> l_new->key + round_up(key_size, 8)); > > >> > > >> In the above check_and_init_map_value() intends to do initializing > > >> for an element from bpf_mem_cache_alloc (could be reused from the free list). > > >> > > >> The check_and_init_map_value() looks like below (in include/linux/bpf.h) > > >> > > >> static inline void bpf_obj_init(const struct btf_field_offs *foffs, void *obj) > > >> { > > >> int i; > > >> > > >> if (!foffs) > > >> return; > > >> for (i = 0; i < foffs->cnt; i++) > > >> memset(obj + foffs->field_off[i], 0, foffs->field_sz[i]); > > >> } > > >> > > >> static inline void check_and_init_map_value(struct bpf_map *map, void *dst) > > >> { > > >> bpf_obj_init(map->field_offs, dst); > > >> } > > >> > > >> IIUC, bpf_obj_init() will bzero those fields like spin_lock, timer, > > >> list_head, list_node, etc. > > >> > > >> This is the problem for above problem #1. > > >> Maybe I missed something? > > > Yes. It is the problem patch #1 tries to fix exactly. Patch #1 tries to fix the > > > problem by only calling check_and_init_map_value() once for the newly-allocated > > > element, so if a freed element is reused, its special fields will not be zeroed > > > again. Is there any other cases which are not covered by the solution or any > > > other similar problems in hash-tab ? > > > > No, I checked all cases of check_and_init_map_value() and didn't find > > any other instances. > > check_and_init_map_value() is called in two other cases: > lookup_and_delete[_batch]. > There the zeroing of the fields is necessary because the 'value' > is a temp buffer that is going to be copied to user space. > I think the way forward is to add GFP_ZERO to mem_alloc > (to make it equivalent to prealloc), remove one case > of check_and_init_map_value from hashmap, add short comments > to two other cases and add a big comment to check_and_init_map_value() > that should say that 'dst' must be a temp buffer and should not > point to memory that could be used in parallel by a bpf prog. > It feels like we've dealt with this issue a couple times already > and keep repeating this mistake, so the more comments the better. Hou, are you plannning to resubmit this change? I also hit this while testing my changes on bpf-next.
