This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit
to the 4.19-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
bpf-adjust-insufficient-default-bpf_jit_limit.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.19 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
commit ec66a4beeebc1489124e0c37dbdb69547e3e206c
Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Mar 20 15:37:25 2023 +0100
bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit
[ Upstream commit 10ec8ca8ec1a2f04c4ed90897225231c58c124a7 ]
We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following:
After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS
clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck
in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the
following error:
Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to
exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]":
OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process:
unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel:
error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown
However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only
started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to
5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads.
We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528)
which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to
execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value
returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}'
was steadily increasing.
I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem
their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter,
seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane
and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective.
The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation
where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF
policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading
of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in
2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF
consumers today.
Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the
module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users
running into potentially hard to debug issues.
Fixes: fdadd04931c2 ("bpf: fix bpf_jit_limit knob for PAGE_SIZE >= 64K")
Reported-by: Stephen Haynes <sh@xxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Lefteris Alexakis <lefteris.alexakis@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1179
Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1219
Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320143725.8394-1-daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 24e16538e4d71..285101772c755 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static int __init bpf_jit_charge_init(void)
{
/* Only used as heuristic here to derive limit. */
bpf_jit_limit_max = bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit();
- bpf_jit_limit = min_t(u64, round_up(bpf_jit_limit_max >> 2,
+ bpf_jit_limit = min_t(u64, round_up(bpf_jit_limit_max >> 1,
PAGE_SIZE), LONG_MAX);
return 0;
}
