Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-78618-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <1310411e1224f6635ba5c70c34563a4b7fafd523.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v3 07/16] bpf/helpers: mark the callback of
 bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() as sleepable
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@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>, Yonghong Song
 <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav
 Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@kernel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,  Benjamin Tissoires
 <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Shuah
 Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:35:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20240221-hid-bpf-sleepable-v3-7-1fb378ca6301@kernel.org>
References: <20240221-hid-bpf-sleepable-v3-0-1fb378ca6301@kernel.org>
	 <20240221-hid-bpf-sleepable-v3-7-1fb378ca6301@kernel.org>
Autocrypt: addr=eddyz87@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=mQGNBGKNNQEBDACwcUNXZOGTzn4rr7Sd18SA5Wv0Wna/ONE0ZwZEx+sIjyGrPOIhR14/DsOr3ZJer9UJ/WAJwbxOBj6E5Y2iF7grehljNbLr/jMjzPJ+hJpfOEAb5xjCB8xIqDoric1WRcCaRB+tDSk7jcsIIiMish0diTK3qTdu4MB6i/sh4aeFs2nifkNi3LdBuk8Xnk+RJHRoKFJ+C+EoSmQPuDQIRaF9N2m4yO0eG36N8jLwvUXnZzGvHkphoQ9ztbRJp58oh6xT7uH62m98OHbsVgzYKvHyBu/IU2ku5kVG9pLrFp25xfD4YdlMMkJH6l+jk+cpY0cvMTS1b6/g+1fyPM+uzD8Wy+9LtZ4PHwLZX+t4ONb/48i5AKq/jSsb5HWdciLuKEwlMyFAihZamZpEj+9n91NLPX4n7XeThXHaEvaeVVl4hfW/1Qsao7l1YjU/NCHuLaDeH4U1P59bagjwo9d1n5/PESeuD4QJFNqW+zkmE4tmyTZ6bPV6T5xdDRHeiITGc00AEQEAAbQkRWR1YXJkIFppbmdlcm1hbiA8ZWRkeXo4N0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQHUBBMBCgA+FiEEx+6LrjApQyqnXCYELgxleklgRAkFAmKNNQECGwMFCQPCZwAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQLgxleklgRAlWZAv/cJ5v3zlEyP0/jMKQBqbVCCHTirPEw+nqxbkeSO6r2FUds0NnGA9a6NPOpBH+qW7a6+n6q3sIbvH7jlss4pzLI7LYlDC6z+egTv7KR5X1xFrY1uR5UGs1beAjnzYeV2hK4yqRUfygsT0Wk5e4FiNBv4+DUZ8r0cNDkO6swJxU55DO21mcteC147+4aDoHZ40R0tsAu+brDGSSoOPpb0RWVsEf9XOBJqWWA+T7mluw
 nYzhLWGcczc6J71q1Dje0l5vIPaSFOgwmWD4DA+WvuxM/shH4rtWeodbv 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
 t1iq+gsfnXbPz5AnS598ScZI1oP7OrPSFJkt/z4acEbOQDQs8aUqrd46PV jsdqGvKnXZxzylux29UTNby4jTlz9pNJM+wPrDRmGfchLDUmf6CffaUYCbu4FiId+9+dcTCDvxbABRy1C3OJ8QY7cxfJ+pEZW18fRJ0XCl/fiV/ecAOfB3HsqgTzAn555h0rkFgay0hAvMU/mAW/CFNSIxV397zm749ZNLA0L2dMy1AKuOqH+/B+/ImBfJMDjmdyJQ8WU/OFRuGLdqOd2oZrA1iuPIa+yUYyZkaZfz/emQwpIL1+Q4p1R/OplA4yc301AqruXXUcVDbEB+joHW3hy5FwK5t5OwTKatrSJBkydSF9zdXy98fYzGniRyRA65P0Ix/8J3BYB4edY2/w0Ip/mdYsYQljBY0A==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 17:25 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

[...]

> @@ -626,6 +627,7 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
>  	bool is_async_cb: 1;
>  	bool is_exception_cb: 1;
>  	bool args_cached: 1;
> +	bool is_sleepable: 1;
> =20
>  	u8 arg_cnt;
>  	struct bpf_subprog_arg_info args[MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS];

[...]

> @@ -2421,6 +2424,7 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(str=
uct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  	 * Initialize it similar to do_check_common().
>  	 */
>  	elem->st.branches =3D 1;
> +	elem->st.in_sleepable =3D env->subprog_info[subprog].is_sleepable;
>  	frame =3D kzalloc(sizeof(*frame), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!frame)
>  		goto err;

[...]

> @@ -9478,6 +9483,7 @@ static int push_callback_call(struct bpf_verifier_e=
nv *env, struct bpf_insn *ins
> =20
>  		/* there is no real recursion here. timer callbacks are async */
>  		env->subprog_info[subprog].is_async_cb =3D true;
> +		env->subprog_info[subprog].is_sleepable =3D is_bpf_timer_set_sleepable=
_cb_kfunc(insn->imm);
>  		async_cb =3D push_async_cb(env, env->subprog_info[subprog].start,
>  					 insn_idx, subprog);

I'd make is_sleepable a parameter for push_async_cb() instead of a field
in struct bpf_subprog_info.
I had to spend some time convincing myself that bpf_subprog_info->is_sleepa=
ble
does not have to be computed before do_check() in check_cfg(),
or what would happen if same callback is passed as both sleepable and
non-sleepable callback. These questions won't arise if this is a parameter.

[...]