Now that we have bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() available and working, we
can tag the attached callback as sleepable, and let the verifier check
in the correct context the calls and kfuncs.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
---
changes in v4:
- use a function parameter to forward the sleepable information
new in v3 (split from v2 02/10)
---
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 ++++++++++---
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 7cb1b75eee38..14e4ee67b694 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
* while they are still in use.
*/
bool used_as_loop_entry;
+ bool in_sleepable;
/* first and last insn idx of this verifier state */
u32 first_insn_idx;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 53f85e114a33..0be07da38f8a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1434,6 +1434,7 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state,
}
dst_state->speculative = src->speculative;
dst_state->active_rcu_lock = src->active_rcu_lock;
+ dst_state->in_sleepable = src->in_sleepable;
dst_state->curframe = src->curframe;
dst_state->active_lock.ptr = src->active_lock.ptr;
dst_state->active_lock.id = src->active_lock.id;
@@ -2407,7 +2408,7 @@ static void init_func_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
/* Similar to push_stack(), but for async callbacks */
static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
int insn_idx, int prev_insn_idx,
- int subprog)
+ int subprog, bool is_sleepable)
{
struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem *elem;
struct bpf_func_state *frame;
@@ -2434,6 +2435,7 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
* Initialize it similar to do_check_common().
*/
elem->st.branches = 1;
+ elem->st.in_sleepable = is_sleepable;
frame = kzalloc(sizeof(*frame), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!frame)
goto err;
@@ -5279,7 +5281,8 @@ static int map_kptr_match_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
static bool in_sleepable(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
{
- return env->prog->sleepable;
+ return env->prog->sleepable ||
+ (env->cur_state && env->cur_state->in_sleepable);
}
/* The non-sleepable programs and sleepable programs with explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock()
@@ -9493,7 +9496,8 @@ static int push_callback_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *ins
/* there is no real recursion here. timer callbacks are async */
env->subprog_info[subprog].is_async_cb = true;
async_cb = push_async_cb(env, env->subprog_info[subprog].start,
- insn_idx, subprog);
+ insn_idx, subprog,
+ is_bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb_impl_kfunc(insn->imm));
if (!async_cb)
return -EFAULT;
callee = async_cb->frame[0];
@@ -16937,6 +16941,9 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (old->active_rcu_lock != cur->active_rcu_lock)
return false;
+ if (old->in_sleepable != cur->in_sleepable)
+ return false;
+
/* for states to be equal callsites have to be the same
* and all frame states need to be equivalent
*/
--
2.44.0
On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 15:29 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
[...]
> @@ -5279,7 +5281,8 @@ static int map_kptr_match_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>
> static bool in_sleepable(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> {
> - return env->prog->sleepable;
> + return env->prog->sleepable ||
> + (env->cur_state && env->cur_state->in_sleepable);
> }
I was curious why 'env->cur_state &&' check was needed and found that
removing it caused an error in the following fragment:
static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
{
...
if (is_storage_get_function(insn->imm)) {
if (!in_sleepable(env) ||
env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].storage_get_func_atomic)
insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, (__force __s32)GFP_ATOMIC);
else
insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, (__force __s32)GFP_KERNEL);
...
}
...
}
When do_misc_fixups() is done env->cur_state is NULL.
Current implementation would use GFP_ATOMIC allocation even for
sleepable callbacks, where GFP_KERNEL is sufficient.
Is this is something we want to address?
>
> /* The non-sleepable programs and sleepable programs with explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock()
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:54 AM Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 15:29 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> [...]
>
> > @@ -5279,7 +5281,8 @@ static int map_kptr_match_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> >
> > static bool in_sleepable(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > {
> > - return env->prog->sleepable;
> > + return env->prog->sleepable ||
> > + (env->cur_state && env->cur_state->in_sleepable);
> > }
>
> I was curious why 'env->cur_state &&' check was needed and found that
> removing it caused an error in the following fragment:
>
> static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> {
> ...
> if (is_storage_get_function(insn->imm)) {
> if (!in_sleepable(env) ||
> env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].storage_get_func_atomic)
> insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, (__force __s32)GFP_ATOMIC);
> else
> insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, (__force __s32)GFP_KERNEL);
> ...
> }
> ...
> }
>
> When do_misc_fixups() is done env->cur_state is NULL.
> Current implementation would use GFP_ATOMIC allocation even for
> sleepable callbacks, where GFP_KERNEL is sufficient.
> Is this is something we want to address?
I honestly have no idea of the impact there.
AFAICT, if env->cur_state is not set, we don't even know if the
callback will be sleepable or not, so if there is a small penalty,
then it's the safest option, no?
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> >
> > /* The non-sleepable programs and sleepable programs with explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock()
>