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;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 22:15:11 +0200
To:     Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bpf: Drop unprotected find_vpid() in favour of
 find_get_pid()
Message-ID: <YtsFT1yFtb7UW2Xu@krava>
References: <20220721111430.416305-1-lee@kernel.org>
 <Ytk+/npvvDGg9pBP@krava>
 <Ytk/jT+zyNZpafgn@google.com>
 <YtlDPYQWDcORbP0o@krava>
 <fbc98bb0-a2d6-a450-e6fc-878701e5906d@fb.com>
 <Ytm92NYx4SyKN4Nm@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ytm92NYx4SyKN4Nm@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:58:00PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 7/21/22 5:14 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:59:09PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:14:30PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > The documentation for find_pid() clearly states:
> > > 
> > > typo find_vpid
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >    "Must be called with the tasklist_lock or rcu_read_lock() held."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Presently we do neither.
> > > 
> > > just curious, did you see crash related to this or you just spot that
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In an ideal world we would wrap the in-lined call to find_vpid() along
> > > > > > with get_pid_task() in the suggested rcu_read_lock() and have done.
> > > > > > However, looking at get_pid_task()'s internals, it already does that
> > > > > > independently, so this would lead to deadlock.
> > > > > 
> > > > > hm, we can have nested rcu_read_lock calls, right?
> > > > 
> > > > I assumed not, but that might be an oversight on my part.
> > 
> > From kernel documentation, nested rcu_read_lock is allowed.
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
> > 
> > RCU's grace-period guarantee allows updaters to wait for the completion of
> > all pre-existing RCU read-side critical sections. An RCU read-side critical
> > section begins with the marker rcu_read_lock() and ends with the marker
> > rcu_read_unlock(). These markers may be nested, and RCU treats a nested set
> > as one big RCU read-side critical section. Production-quality
> > implementations of rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are extremely
> > lightweight, and in fact have exactly zero overhead in Linux kernels built
> > for production use with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Would that be your preference?
> > > 
> > > seems simpler than calling get/put for ppid
> > 
> > The current implementation seems okay since we can hide
> > rcu_read_lock() inside find_get_pid(). We can also avoid
> > nested rcu_read_lock(), which is although allowed but
> > not pretty.
> 
> Right, this was my thinking.
> 
> Happy to go with whatever you guys decide though.
> 
> Make the call and I'll rework, or not.

ok, I can live with the current version ;-) could you please resend
with fixed changelog?

thanks,
jirka