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:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
CC:     KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, 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+5MJhm5YS4VaoiytsAgAAsZICAAAZZAIAAHdAAgAEZZgCAAAXQAIAFJyaAgAAWvQCAAAS3gA==
Date:   Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:12:48 +0000
Message-ID: <75A2A254-4D51-41F0-9B01-ED2AFA745E03@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>
 <A0F77AB9-5C1D-4657-96C9-33B5FDF6DF00@fb.com>
 <72a52715-dcfc-dc0b-ac5b-e14b7540fd31@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <72a52715-dcfc-dc0b-ac5b-e14b7540fd31@fb.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6577A71127B8014BB0BB27E577F5BB31@namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 035a95ed-8bd3-4df7-8bad-08d8b9bbd6d3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2021 01:12:48.5577
 (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: /psgwcpTjnyz1gCGr1O0gxVFsKSTbhfe/5PGYzhk/itPkxD5UlPkmp0/C4WsnD7YlXAVCa3HVodGwk0u9KWAag==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR15MB4201
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 lowpriorityscore=0
 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0
 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0
 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101160007
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Jan 15, 2021, at 4:55 PM, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 1/15/21 3:34 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>> 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> wro=
te:
>>>>>>>>=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_loca=
l_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 *ts=
k)
>>>>>>>>>      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 mentione=
d
>>>>>>>> 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, l=
ike:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> diff --git i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_stor=
age.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, va=
lue,
>>>>>                         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;
>=20
> This may not work? Even we check here and task->usage is not 0, it could =
still become 0 immediately after the above refcount_read, right?

We call bpf_task_storage_get() with "task" that has valid BTF, so "task"
should not go away during the BPF program? Whatever mechanism that=20
triggers the BPF program should either hold a reference to task (usage > 0)
or be the only one owning it (usage =3D=3D 0, in __put_task_struct). Did I =
miss
anything?

Thanks,
Song

>=20
>> +
>>                 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.
>> Thanks,
>> Song