Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
CC:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        "John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "Hao Luo" <haoluo@google.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing
 programs
Thread-Topic: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing
 programs
Thread-Index: AQHW5hbxN1bu8adE10+5MJhm5YS4VaoiytsAgAAsZICAAAZZAIAAHdAAgAEZZgCAAAXQAIAFJyaA
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:34:33 +0000
Message-ID: <A0F77AB9-5C1D-4657-96C9-33B5FDF6DF00@fb.com>
References: <20210108231950.3844417-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210108231950.3844417-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210111185650.hsvfpoqmqc2mj7ci@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CACYkzJ4mQrx1=owwrgBtu1Nvy9t0W4qP4=dthEutKpWPHxHrBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210111215820.t4z4g4cv66j7piio@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <9FF8CA8D-2D52-4120-99A5-86A68704BF4C@fb.com>
 <e4002f5c-6c2c-0945-9324-a8dc51125018@fb.com>
 <CACYkzJ64h53iZq9EpL01NukB6Rh+rQ0fupdn+shn-dTQ8NWH=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACYkzJ64h53iZq9EpL01NukB6Rh+rQ0fupdn+shn-dTQ8NWH=A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9B2FE0A24EAE0441BFE96B83A6BDB581@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7076adfd-d700-44ba-cb9f-08d8b9ae1d77
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jan 2021 23:34:34.1364
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rvUhDnNXS9Ofzl4+AtuMPFd9T5Iyub+1iMM/K7ins83VbLv/ufg54aLzNsw4iOTQ5/MqDPJBwwIyphI+2wmMMw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB3192
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737
 definitions=2021-01-15_15:2021-01-15,2021-01-15 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 mlxlogscore=999
 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0
 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0
 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101150143
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:53 AM, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:32 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 1/11/21 3:45 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:58 PM, Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:35:43PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:57 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote=
:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:19:47PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_=
storage.c
>>>>>>> index dd5aedee99e73..9bd47ad2b26f1 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>=20
> [...]
>=20
>>>>>>> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>>>>>>> @@ -734,6 +735,7 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>>>>>      cgroup_free(tsk);
>>>>>>>      task_numa_free(tsk, true);
>>>>>>>      security_task_free(tsk);
>>>>>>> +     bpf_task_storage_free(tsk);
>>>>>>>      exit_creds(tsk);
>>>>>> If exit_creds() is traced by a bpf and this bpf is doing
>>>>>> bpf_task_storage_get(..., BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE),
>>>>>> new task storage will be created after bpf_task_storage_free().
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I recalled there was an earlier discussion with KP and KP mentioned
>>>>>> BPF_LSM will not be called with a task that is going away.
>>>>>> It seems enabling bpf task storage in bpf tracing will break
>>>>>> this assumption and needs to be addressed?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> For tracing programs, I think we will need an allow list where
>>>>> task local storage can be used.
>>>> Instead of whitelist, can refcount_inc_not_zero(&tsk->usage) be used?
>>>=20
>>> I think we can put refcount_inc_not_zero() in bpf_task_storage_get, lik=
e:
>>>=20
>>> diff --git i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storag=
e.c
>>> index f654b56907b69..93d01b0a010e6 100644
>>> --- i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
>>> +++ w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
>>> @@ -216,6 +216,9 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_task_storage_get, struct bpf_map *, =
map, struct task_struct *,
>>>          * by an RCU read-side critical section.
>>>          */
>>>         if (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) {
>>> +               if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&task->usage))
>>> +                       return -EBUSY;
>>> +
>>>                 sdata =3D bpf_local_storage_update(
>>>                         task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, valu=
e,
>>>                         BPF_NOEXIST);
>>>=20
>>> But where shall we add the refcount_dec()? IIUC, we cannot add it to
>>> __put_task_struct().
>>=20
>> Maybe put_task_struct()?
>=20
> Yeah, something like, or if you find a more elegant alternative :)
>=20
> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> @@ -107,13 +107,20 @@ extern void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t=
);
>=20
> static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
> {
> -       if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
> +
> +       if (rcu_access_pointer(t->bpf_storage)) {
> +               if (refcount_sub_and_test(2, &t->usage))
> +                       __put_task_struct(t);
> +       } else if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
>                __put_task_struct(t);
> }
>=20
> static inline void put_task_struct_many(struct task_struct *t, int nr)
> {
> -       if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr, &t->usage))
> +       if (rcu_access_pointer(t->bpf_storage)) {
> +               if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr + 1, &t->usage))
> +                       __put_task_struct(t);
> +       } else if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr, &t->usage))
>                __put_task_struct(t);
> }

It is not ideal to leak bpf_storage here. How about we only add the
following:

diff --git i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
index f654b56907b69..2811b9fc47233 100644
--- i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
+++ w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
@@ -216,6 +216,10 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_task_storage_get, struct bpf_map *, map=
, struct task_struct *,
         * by an RCU read-side critical section.
         */
        if (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) {
+               /* the task_struct is being freed, fail over*/
+               if (!refcount_read(&task->usage))
+                       return -EBUSY;
+
                sdata =3D bpf_local_storage_update(
                        task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value,
                        BPF_NOEXIST);

>=20
>=20
> I may be missing something but shouldn't bpf_storage be an __rcu
> member like we have for sk_bpf_storage?

Good catch! I will fix this in v2.=20

Thanks,
Song=