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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230717114307.46124-1-aspsk@isovalent.com> <20230717114307.46124-2-aspsk@isovalent.com>
 <CAADnVQKutS8fYLkNz-rhdmFJ3cTWS6JD9PmwjK7ZZ8N3u7nUYA@mail.gmail.com> <ZLeMExVzuG+uggn8@zh-lab-node-5>
In-Reply-To: <ZLeMExVzuG+uggn8@zh-lab-node-5>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:28:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJ7EB0JMOzTOw5jg-nZcTnKn=nSwpsn4eTwg14LK7GcUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: fix setting return values for htab
 batch ops
To:     Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com>,
        Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>, Joe Stringer <joe@isovalent.com>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:07=E2=80=AFAM Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 05:52:38PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:42=E2=80=AFAM Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovale=
nt.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The map_lookup{,_and_delete}_batch operations are expected to set the
> > > output parameter, counter, to the number of elements successfully cop=
ied
> > > to the user space. This is also expected to be true if an error is
> > > returned and the errno is set to a value other than EFAULT. The curre=
nt
> > > implementation can return -EINVAL without setting the counter to zero=
, so
> > > some userspace programs may confuse this with a [partially] successfu=
l
> > > operation. Move code which sets the counter to zero to the top of the
> > > function so that we always return a correct value.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 057996380a42 ("bpf: Add batch ops to all htab bpf map")
> > > Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > index a8c7e1c5abfa..fa8e3f1e1724 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > @@ -1692,6 +1692,13 @@ __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(struct bpf_=
map *map,
> > >         struct bucket *b;
> > >         int ret =3D 0;
> > >
> > > +       max_count =3D attr->batch.count;
> > > +       if (!max_count)
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > > +       if (put_user(0, &uattr->batch.count))
> > > +               return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > >         elem_map_flags =3D attr->batch.elem_flags;
> > >         if ((elem_map_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK) ||
> > >             ((elem_map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) && !btf_record_has_field(m=
ap->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK)))
> > > @@ -1701,13 +1708,6 @@ __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(struct bpf_=
map *map,
> > >         if (map_flags)
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > -       max_count =3D attr->batch.count;
> > > -       if (!max_count)
> > > -               return 0;
> > > -
> > > -       if (put_user(0, &uattr->batch.count))
> > > -               return -EFAULT;
> > > -
> >
> > I hear your concern, but I don't think it's a good idea
> > to return 0 when flags were incorrect.
> > That will cause more suprises to user space.
> > I think the code is fine as-is.
>
> Yes, thanks, this makes sense. And actually we can do both:
>
>    max_count =3D attr->batch.count;
>    put_user(0, &uattr->batch.count);
>    /* check flags */
>    if (!max_count)
>            return 0;
>
> This way we always set the userspace counter to a correct value
> and also check flags in the right place.

Looks too convoluted to me.
I think concerns over user space always assuming batch.count
is updated with zero even when it calls api incorrectly are overblown.