Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-136177-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240408-hid-bpf-sleepable-v6-0-0499ddd91b94@kernel.org>
 <20240408-hid-bpf-sleepable-v6-4-0499ddd91b94@kernel.org> <db1f8413ef4ebc57b9ddc586e48acf3fad19ebf2.camel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <db1f8413ef4ebc57b9ddc586e48acf3fad19ebf2.camel@gmail.com>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:14:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLvRK7eYvHGv4aUyCFakqVz=3aSOzX58zP9nHtNXf9h=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v6 4/6] bpf/helpers: mark the callback of
 bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() as sleepable
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>, 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 <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, 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>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:36=E2=80=AFPM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > Now that we have bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() available and working, we
> > can tag the attached callback as sleepable, and let the verifier check
> > in the correct context the calls and kfuncs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
> >
> > ---
>
> I think this patch is fine with one nit regarding in_sleepable().
> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
>
> > @@ -5279,7 +5281,8 @@ static int map_kptr_match_type(struct bpf_verifie=
r_env *env,
> >
> >  static bool in_sleepable(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  {
> > -     return env->prog->sleepable;
> > +     return env->prog->sleepable ||
> > +            (env->cur_state && env->cur_state->in_sleepable);
> >  }
>
> Sorry, I already raised this before.
> As far as I understand the 'env->cur_state' check is needed because
> this function is used from do_misc_fixups():
>
>                 if (is_storage_get_function(insn->imm)) {
>                         if (!in_sleepable(env) ||
>                             env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].storage_get_fun=
c_atomic)
>                                 insn_buf[0] =3D BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, =
(__force __s32)GFP_ATOMIC);
>                         else
>                                 insn_buf[0] =3D BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, =
(__force __s32)GFP_KERNEL);
>                         insn_buf[1] =3D *insn;
>                         cnt =3D 2;
>                         ...
>                 }
>
> For a timer callback function 'env->prog->sleepable' would be false.
> Which means that inside sleepable callback function GFP_ATOMIC would
> be used in cases where GFP_KERNEL would be sufficient.
> An alternative would be to check (and set) sleepable flag not for a
> full program but for a subprogram.

At this point all subprograms are still part of the main program.
jit_subprogs() hasn't been called yet.
So there is only one 'prog' object.
So cannot really set prog->sleepable for callback subprog.

But you've raised a good point.
We can remove "!in_sleepable(env)" part in do_misc_fixups() with:
-                if (in_sleepable(env) && is_storage_get_function(func_id))
-
env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].storage_get_func_atomic =3D true;

+ if (is_storage_get_function(func_id))
+   env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].storage_get_func_atomic =3D !in_sleepable(=
env);