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:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:55:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Fix preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse
Message-ID: <20190423195559.GY4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190419120207.GO4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419130304.GV14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419131522.GW14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <57620139-92a3-4a21-56bd-5d6fff23214f@redhat.com>
 <7b1bfc26-6e90-bd65-ab46-08413acd80e9@redhat.com>
 <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=whnQJ9YDrkcKteNSACMJxzw1bL0RPfGQsey_9Nm7b8mnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4f62d7f2-e5f6-500e-3e70-b1d1978f7140@redhat.com>
 <20190423193435.GX4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <88ba7be0-9ec5-941e-1b3f-80fbe05fe3a0@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <88ba7be0-9ec5-941e-1b3f-80fbe05fe3a0@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:41:32PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/23/19 3:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

> >> You are right on that. However, there is a variant called
> >> preempt_enable_no_resched() that doesn't have this side effect. So I am
> >> going to use that one instead.
> > Only if the very next line is schedule(). Otherwise you're very much not
> > going to use that function.
> 
> May I know the reason why. 

Because it can 'consume' a need_resched and introduces arbitrary delays
before the schedule() eventually happens, breaking the very notion of
PREEMPT=y (and the fundamentals RT relies on).

> I saw a number of instances of
> preempt_enable_no_resched() without right next a schedule().

Look more closely.. and let me know, if true, those are bugs that need
fixing.

Argghhh.. BPF...

Also, with the recent RCU rework, we can probably drop that
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() from there if we're disabling
preemption anyway.

---
Subject: bpf: Fix preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse

Unless the very next line is schedule(), or implies it, one must not use
preempt_enable_no_resched(). It can cause a preemption to go missing and
thereby cause arbitrary delays, breaking the PREEMPT=y invariant.

Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index f02367faa58d..944ccc310201 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *old_array,
 		}					\
 _out:							\
 		rcu_read_unlock();			\
-		preempt_enable_no_resched();		\
+		preempt_enable();			\
 		_ret;					\
 	 })