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: <20230817-free_pcppages_bulk-v1-0-c14574a9f80c@kernel.org>
 <20230821103225.qntnsotdzuthxn2y@techsingularity.net> <CAF8kJuOsWo5RfDcfnWZfnqYXjf6bkkxdXG1JCwjaEZ1nn29AaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQKzzj4f-FPPqmnvMttc=_v7ZXmitc2wgNM0bJpm9FcpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKzzj4f-FPPqmnvMttc=_v7ZXmitc2wgNM0bJpm9FcpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:34:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuOFcVsAWt_sMKvSgw_vpikX0-+T4388pJn_F2-2sW_4Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] mm/page_alloc: free_pcppages_bulk safeguard
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
        baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@google.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Alexei,

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 11:57=E2=80=AFAM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:48=E2=80=AFAM Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org> wro=
te:
> >
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > Adding Alexei to the discussion.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:32=E2=80=AFAM Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingula=
rity.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:05:22PM -0700, Chris Li wrote:
> > > > In this patch series I want to safeguard
> > > > the free_pcppage_bulk against change in the
> > > > pcp->count outside of this function. e.g.
> > > > by BPF program inject on the function tracepoint.
> > > >
> > > > I break up the patches into two seperate patches
> > > > for the safeguard and clean up.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully that is easier to review.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > This sounds like a maintenance nightmare if internal state can be arb=
itrary
> > > modified by a BPF program and still expected to work properly in all =
cases.
> > > Every review would have to take into account "what if a BPF script mo=
difies
> > > state behind our back?"
>
> Where did this concern come from?
> Since when BPF can modify arbitrary state?
>
> But I wasn't cc-ed on the original patch, so not sure what it attempts to=
 do.
> Maybe concern is valid.

Sorry I did not CC you on the original patch submission.  I should.

Here is the link for the 1/2 patch, which has the step to reproduce.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230817-free_pcppages_bulk-v1-1-c14574a9f=
80c@kernel.org/

It is using an older version of the BPF program. That spinlock
allocation was fixed
in  commit c66a36af7ba3a628.

Chris


>
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > I agree that it is hard to support if we allow BPF to change any intern=
al
> > stage as a rule.  That is why it is a RFC. Would you consider it case
> > by case basis?
> > The kernel panic is bad, the first patch is actually very small. I can
> > also change it
> > to generate warnings if we detect the inconsistent state.
>
> panic and warns because of bpf prog?!


> bpf infra takes all the precaution to make sure that bpf progs
> can never cause such damage.
>
> >
> > How about the second (clean up) patch or Keming's clean up version? I c=
an modify
> > it to take out the pcp->count if the verdict is just not supporting
> > BPF changing internal
> > state at all. I do wish to get rid of the pindex_min and pindex_max.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Chris
>