Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-151713-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:55:23 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/18] bpf: wq: add bpf_wq_init
Message-ID: <6zslg7atmsexqi3htt7auka3gvwx7pouxva4zsxv2pn5syun35@hgqunkasn2id>
References: <20240416-bpf_wq-v1-0-c9e66092f842@kernel.org>
 <20240416-bpf_wq-v1-11-c9e66092f842@kernel.org>
 <f7awluzevpzqhqo5a65dxlfoo3dhkvbpntb4a5uueq2v7gjj7b@ddoyfpeymg3u>
 <tqj7biswz4ktars2mjrog35sijfgnm2nmvqrzbldphksbtj4kj@qd3digliqsjm>
 <CAADnVQKpC_11C3LNia6uGD5yAe5QeViYHD6TEHKBtEi3L6awLg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQKpC_11C3LNia6uGD5yAe5QeViYHD6TEHKBtEi3L6awLg@mail.gmail.com>

On Apr 19 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's something I added while adding the tests. And some tests were passing
> > in case I was having a non sleepable callback. But if we have
> > bpf_rcu_read_lock(), we are all fine and can reduce the complexity.
> 
> Not quite following what was the issue.
> Since the verifier is unconditionally verifying such callback as sleepable
> the callback won't be able to access rcu pointers without doing
> explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock() first (and few other code patterns
> might be rejected), but that's a good thing.

Oh, I missed that. Well, given that the verifier enforces everything, I
guess we are good :)

> Maybe next to set_cb kfunc add a comment that wq callbacks are sleepable.
> I think bpf prog writers are often with kernel background,
> so it will be their natural assumption that cb is sleepable.

I assume so as well.

Cheers,
Benjamin