Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Message-ID: <41039b2a-6122-4392-96e2-4a833f41496d@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:52:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: don't abuse
 next_thread()
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231114163211.GA874@redhat.com>
 <c768aae4-1c41-41ef-895d-33556b99dc15@linux.dev>
 <20231116095439.GC18748@redhat.com>
From:   Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20231116095439.GC18748@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/16/23 4:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/15, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> Compile tested.
>>>
>>> Every lockless usage of next_thread() was wrong, bpf/task_iter.c is
>>> the last user and is no exception.
>> It would be great if you can give more information in the commit message
>> about why the usage of next_thread() is wrong in bpf/task_iter.c.
> I tried to explain the problems in the changelogs:
>
> 1/3:
> 	task_group_seq_get_next() can return the group leader twice if it races
> 	with mt-thread exec which changes the group->leader's pid.
>
> 2/3:
> 	bpf_iter_task_next() can loop forever, "kit->pos == kit->task" can never
> 	happen if kit->pos execs.
>
>> IIUC, some information is presented in :
>>    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143112.GA31208@redhat.com/
> Yes, Linus and Eric suggest to simply kill next_thread(). I am not
> sure, this needs another discussion.
>
> But as for bpf/task_iter.c... Even _if_ the usage was correct, this
> code simply doesn't need the "circular" next_thread(), NULL at the
> end simplifies the code.
>
>> Also, please add 'bpf' in the subject tag ([PATCH bpf 0/3]) to
>> make it clear the patch should be applied to bpf tree.
> OK, will do next time. Or should I resend this series with 'bpf'
> in the subject tag?

There is no need then. We can wait for maintainers who may or
may not have additional requests.


>
> Thanks,
>
> Oleg.
>