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:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 14:05:55 +0100
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Subject: Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_dispatcher_xdp
Message-ID: <Y5SEM3XgEdN8kAQ8@krava>
References: <Y5M9P95l85oMHki9@krava>
 <Y5NSStSi7h9Vdo/j@krava>
 <5c9d77bf-75f5-954a-c691-39869bb22127@meta.com>
 <Y5OuQNmkoIvcV6IL@krava>
 <ee2a087e-b8c5-fc3e-a114-232490a6c3be@iogearbox.net>
 <Y5O/yxcjQLq5oDAv@krava>
 <96b0d9d8-02a7-ce70-de1e-b275a01f5ff3@iogearbox.net>
 <20221209153445.22182ca5@kernel.org>
 <Y5PNeFYJrC6D4P9p@krava>
 <20221210003838.GZ4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221210003838.GZ4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:38:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:06:16AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:34:45PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 00:32:07 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > fwiw, these should not be necessary, Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst :
> > > > 
> > > >    [...] One example of non-obvious pairing is the XDP feature in networking,
> > > >    which calls BPF programs from network-driver NAPI (softirq) context. BPF
> > > >    relies heavily on RCU protection for its data structures, but because the
> > > >    BPF program invocation happens entirely within a single local_bh_disable()
> > > >    section in a NAPI poll cycle, this usage is safe. The reason that this usage
> > > >    is safe is that readers can use anything that disables BH when updaters use
> > > >    call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(). [...]
> > > 
> > > FWIW I sent a link to the thread to Paul and he confirmed 
> > > the RCU will wait for just the BH.
> > 
> > so IIUC we can omit the rcu_read_lock/unlock on bpf_prog_run_xdp side
> > 
> > Paul,
> > any thoughts on what we can use in here to synchronize bpf_dispatcher_change_prog
> > with bpf_prog_run_xdp callers?
> > 
> > with synchronize_rcu_tasks I'm getting splats like:
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221209153445.22182ca5@kernel.org/T/#m0a869f93404a2744884d922bc96d497ffe8f579f
> > 
> > synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude seems to work (patch below), but it also sounds special ;-)
> 
> It sounds like we are all talking past each other, leaving me no
> choice but to supply a wall of text:
> 
> It is quite true that synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() will wait
> for bh-disabled regions of code, just like synchronize_rcu()
> and synchronize_rcu_tasks() will.  However, please note that
> synchronize_rcu_tasks() never waits on any of the idle tasks.  So the
> usual approach in tracing is to do both a synchronize_rcu_tasks() and
> synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude().  One way of overlapping the resulting
> pair of grace periods is to use synchronize_rcu_mult().
> 
> But none of these permit readers to sleep.  That is what
> synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() is for, but unlike both
> synchronize_rcu_tasks() and synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(),
> you must explicitly mark the readers with rcu_read_lock_trace()
> and rcu_read_unlock_trace().  This is used to protect sleepable
> BPF programs.
> 
> Now, synchronize_rcu() will also wait on bh-disabled lines of code, with
> the exception of such code in the exception path, way deep in the idle
> loop, early in the CPU-online process, or late in the CPU-offline process.
> You can recognize the first two categories of code by the noinstr tags
> on the functions.
> 
> And yes, synchronize_rcu_rude() is quite special.  ;-)
> 
> Does this help, or am I simply adding to the confusion?

I see, so as Alexei said to synchronize bpf_prog_run_xdp callers,
we should be able to use just synchronize_rcu, because it's allways
called just in bh-disabled code

thanks,
jirka