Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:40:49 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        "jolsa@kernel.org" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        "mhiramat@kernel.org" <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/5] bpf: trampoline: support
 FTRACE_OPS_FL_SHARE_IPMODIFY
Message-ID: <20220706174049.6c60250f@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <DC04E081-8320-4A39-A058-D0E33F202625@fb.com>
References: <20220602193706.2607681-1-song@kernel.org>
        <20220602193706.2607681-6-song@kernel.org>
        <20220706153843.37584b5b@gandalf.local.home>
        <DC04E081-8320-4A39-A058-D0E33F202625@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 21:37:52 +0000
Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> wrote:

> > Can you comment here that returning -EAGAIN will not cause this to repeat.
> > That it will change things where the next try will not return -EGAIN?  
> 
> Hmm.. this is not the guarantee here. This conflict is a real race condition 
> that an IPMODIFY function (i.e. livepatch) is being registered at the same time 
> when something else, for example bpftrace, is updating the BPF trampoline. 
> 
> This EAGAIN will propagate to the user of the IPMODIFY function (i.e. livepatch),
> and we need to retry there. In the case of livepatch, the retry is initiated 
> from user space. 

We need to be careful here then. If there's a userspace application that
runs at real-time and does a:

	do {
		errno = 0;
		regsiter_bpf();
	} while (errno != -EAGAIN);

it could in theory preempt the owner of the lock and never make any
progress.

-- Steve