Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:01:31 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
CC:     <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 3/5] bpf: bpf_prog_array_free() should take a
 generic non-rcu pointer
Message-ID: <20180718160128.GA10652@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180713194114.2711-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180713194114.2711-3-guro@fb.com>
 <41b5f919-3155-5bd4-2774-84efd58650e2@iogearbox.net>
 <20180716225715.GB3898@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <1a40b0a8-7440-f2d2-d743-64901b5d1bfe@iogearbox.net>
 <20180717225520.GA15643@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <90bc1d99-da1b-065a-cd4f-457b7f17a533@iogearbox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <90bc1d99-da1b-065a-cd4f-457b7f17a533@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2018 16:01:37.5871 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d8702130-f196-4aa6-15c1-08d5ecc7be77
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR15MB0170
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-07-18_04:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:07:48PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 12:55 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 07/17/2018 12:57 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:30:18AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >>>> On 07/13/2018 09:41 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>>>> bpf_prog_array_free() should take a generic non-rcu pointer
> >>>>> as an argument, as freeing the objects assumes that we're
> >>>>> holding an exclusive rights on it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rcu_access_pointer() can be used to convert a __rcu pointer to
> >>>>> a generic pointer before passing it to bpf_prog_array_free(),
> >>>>> if necessary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch eliminates the following sparse warning:
> >>>>> kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> >>>>> kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9:    expected struct callback_head *head
> >>>>> kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9:    got struct callback_head [noderef] <asn:4>*<noident>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 324bda9e6c5a ("bpf: multi program support for cgroup+bpf")
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> >>>>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c |  6 +++---
> >>>>>  include/linux/bpf.h         |  2 +-
> >>>>>  kernel/bpf/cgroup.c         | 11 ++++++-----
> >>>>>  kernel/bpf/core.c           |  5 ++---
> >>>>>  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c    |  8 ++++----
> >>>>>  5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c b/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> >>>>> index fcfab6635f9c..509b262aa0dc 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> >>>>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static int lirc_bpf_attach(struct rc_dev *rcdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >>>>>  		goto unlock;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	rcu_assign_pointer(raw->progs, new_array);
> >>>>> -	bpf_prog_array_free(old_array);
> >>>>> +	bpf_prog_array_free(rcu_access_pointer(old_array));
> >>>>
> >>>> Taking this one as an example, why can't we already do the rcu_dereference() on the
> >>>> 'old_array = raw->progs' where we fetch the old_array initially? Then we also wouldn't
> >>>> need the rcu_access_pointer() on bpf_prog_array_free() and yet another rcu_dereference()
> >>>> inside the bpf_prog_array_copy() from your later patch?
> >>>
> >>> We can, but then we have to change bpf_prog_array_copy() args annotation,
> >>> and also all places, where it's called.
> >>> IMO, basically all local variables and function args marked as __rcu
> >>> should be not marked as RCU, but fixing them all is beyond this patchset.
> >>
> >> Right, agree, the __rcu markings seem somewhat arbitrary. :-( I think we need to
> >> investigate this a bit deeper and do a proper audit on the whole bpf prog array's
> >> RCU handling (probably won't get to it in next two weeks but put onto backlog just
> >> in case it's still unresolved till then). That said, given this has been there for
> >> quite a while and it's rc5 now, I think we could start out on bpf-next with the
> >> obvious candidates which should be okay even if it ends up bigger.
> > 
> > Totally agree.
> > 
> >> First two from this series we could already take in if you prefer.
> > 
> > That would be nice!
> 
> Ok, done, applied 1+2 to bpf-next, thanks Roman!

Thanks, Daniel!