From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 09/19] bpf: Use BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() at simple call sites.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:38:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+Q6hZNFZyKSQm1vPYNszH9T6Krz4K8Eu9f3Dy5UQPsag@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875zg3q7cn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:01 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com> writes:
>
> Cc+: seccomp folks
>
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> >
> >> From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>
> Leaving content for reference
>
> >> All of these cases are strictly of the form:
> >>
> >> preempt_disable();
> >> BPF_PROG_RUN(...);
> >> preempt_enable();
> >>
> >> Replace this with BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() which wraps BPF_PROG_RUN()
> >> with:
> >>
> >> migrate_disable();
> >> BPF_PROG_RUN(...);
> >> migrate_enable();
> >>
> >> On non RT enabled kernels this maps to preempt_disable/enable() and on RT
> >> enabled kernels this solely prevents migration, which is sufficient as
> >> there is no requirement to prevent reentrancy to any BPF program from a
> >> preempting task. The only requirement is that the program stays on the same
> >> CPU.
> >>
> >> Therefore, this is a trivially correct transformation.
> >>
> >> [ tglx: Converted to BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() ]
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/filter.h | 4 +---
> >> kernel/seccomp.c | 4 +---
> >> net/core/flow_dissector.c | 4 +---
> >> net/core/skmsg.c | 8 ++------
> >> net/kcm/kcmsock.c | 4 +---
> >> 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> >> @@ -713,9 +713,7 @@ static inline u32 bpf_prog_run_clear_cb(
> >> if (unlikely(prog->cb_access))
> >> memset(cb_data, 0, BPF_SKB_CB_LEN);
> >>
> >> - preempt_disable();
> >> - res = BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, skb);
> >> - preempt_enable();
> >> + res = BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU(prog, skb);
> >> return res;
> >> }
> >>
> >> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> @@ -268,16 +268,14 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const str
> >> * All filters in the list are evaluated and the lowest BPF return
> >> * value always takes priority (ignoring the DATA).
> >> */
> >> - preempt_disable();
> >> for (; f; f = f->prev) {
> >> - u32 cur_ret = BPF_PROG_RUN(f->prog, sd);
> >> + u32 cur_ret = BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU(f->prog, sd);
> >>
> >
> > More a question really, isn't the behavior changing here? i.e. shouldn't
> > migrate_disable()/migrate_enable() be moved to outside the loop? Or is
> > running seccomp filters on different cpus not a problem?
>
> In my understanding this is a list of filters and they are independent
> of each other.
Yes. It's fine to be preempted between filters.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-19 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-14 13:39 [RFC patch 00/19] bpf: Make BPF and PREEMPT_RT co-exist Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 01/19] sched: Provide migrate_disable/enable() inlines Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 02/19] sched: Provide cant_migrate() Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 03/19] bpf: Update locking comment in hashtab code Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 04/19] bpf/tracing: Remove redundant preempt_disable() in __bpf_trace_run() Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-19 16:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-19 17:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 05/19] perf/bpf: Remove preempt disable around BPF invocation Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 06/19] bpf: Dont iterate over possible CPUs with interrupts disabled Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 07/19] bpf: Provide BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() macro Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 18:50 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-02-14 19:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 08/19] bpf: Replace cant_sleep() with cant_migrate() Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 09/19] bpf: Use BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() at simple call sites Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-19 1:39 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-02-19 9:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-19 16:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-02-21 0:20 ` Kees Cook
2020-02-21 14:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-21 14:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-21 22:15 ` Kees Cook
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 10/19] trace/bpf: Use migrate disable in trace_call_bpf() Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 11/19] bpf/tests: Use migrate disable instead of preempt disable Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 12/19] bpf: Use migrate_disable/enabe() in trampoline code Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 13/19] bpf: Use migrate_disable/enable in array macros and cgroup/lirc code Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 14/19] bpf: Use migrate_disable() in hashtab code Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 19:11 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-02-14 19:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-18 23:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-19 0:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-19 1:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-19 15:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-02-20 4:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 15/19] bpf: Use migrate_disable() in sys_bpf() Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 16/19] bpf: Factor out hashtab bucket lock operations Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 17/19] bpf: Prepare hashtab locking for PREEMPT_RT Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 18/19] bpf, lpm: Make locking RT friendly Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 13:39 ` [RFC patch 19/19] bpf/stackmap: Dont trylock mmap_sem with PREEMPT_RT and interrupts disabled Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 17:53 ` [RFC patch 00/19] bpf: Make BPF and PREEMPT_RT co-exist David Miller
2020-02-14 18:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-17 12:59 ` [PATCH] bpf: Enforce map preallocation for all instrumentation programs Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-15 20:09 ` [RFC patch 00/19] bpf: Make BPF and PREEMPT_RT co-exist Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAADnVQ+Q6hZNFZyKSQm1vPYNszH9T6Krz4K8Eu9f3Dy5UQPsag@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.com \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).