[PATCH 6.1 063/219] bpf: Check rcu_read_lock_trace_held() before calling bpf map helpers

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

6.1-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>

[ Upstream commit 169410eba271afc9f0fb476d996795aa26770c6d ]

These three bpf_map_{lookup,update,delete}_elem() helpers are also
available for sleepable bpf program, so add the corresponding lock
assertion for sleepable bpf program, otherwise the following warning
will be reported when a sleepable bpf program manipulates bpf map under
interpreter mode (aka bpf_jit_enable=0):

  WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 4985 at kernel/bpf/helpers.c:40 ......
  CPU: 3 PID: 4985 Comm: test_progs Not tainted 6.6.0+ #2
  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) ......
  RIP: 0010:bpf_map_lookup_elem+0x54/0x60
  ......
  Call Trace:
   <TASK>
   ? __warn+0xa5/0x240
   ? bpf_map_lookup_elem+0x54/0x60
   ? report_bug+0x1ba/0x1f0
   ? handle_bug+0x40/0x80
   ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x50
   ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1b/0x20
   ? __pfx_bpf_map_lookup_elem+0x10/0x10
   ? rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online+0x65/0xb0
   ? rcu_is_watching+0x23/0x50
   ? bpf_map_lookup_elem+0x54/0x60
   ? __pfx_bpf_map_lookup_elem+0x10/0x10
   ___bpf_prog_run+0x513/0x3b70
   __bpf_prog_run32+0x9d/0xd0
   ? __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur+0xad/0x120
   ? __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur+0x3e/0x120
   bpf_trampoline_6442580665+0x4d/0x1000
   __x64_sys_getpgid+0x5/0x30
   ? do_syscall_64+0x36/0xb0
   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x76
   </TASK>

Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231204140425.1480317-2-houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 6212e4ae084b..34135fbd6097 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -28,12 +28,13 @@
  *
  * Different map implementations will rely on rcu in map methods
  * lookup/update/delete, therefore eBPF programs must run under rcu lock
- * if program is allowed to access maps, so check rcu_read_lock_held in
- * all three functions.
+ * if program is allowed to access maps, so check rcu_read_lock_held() or
+ * rcu_read_lock_trace_held() in all three functions.
  */
 BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_lookup_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 	return (unsigned long) map->ops->map_lookup_elem(map, key);
 }
 
@@ -49,7 +50,8 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto = {
 BPF_CALL_4(bpf_map_update_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key,
 	   void *, value, u64, flags)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 	return map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, flags);
 }
 
@@ -66,7 +68,8 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_map_update_elem_proto = {
 
 BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_delete_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
+		     !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
 	return map->ops->map_delete_elem(map, key);
 }
 
-- 
2.43.0