* pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29
@ 2022-03-29 23:49 Alexei Starovoitov
2022-03-30 1:41 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-29 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem; +Cc: daniel, peterz, mhiramat, kuba, andrii, netdev, bpf, kernel-team
Hi David, hi Jakub,
The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain
a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-).
The main changes are:
1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter.
2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus.
3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others.
Please consider pulling these changes from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git
Thanks a lot!
Also thanks to reporters, reviewers and testers of commits in this pull-request:
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Dan Carpenter, Jiri Olsa, kernel test robot,
KP Singh, Martin KaFai Lau, Masami Hiramatsu, Quentin Monnet, Yonghong
Song
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes since commit d717e4cae0fe77e10a27e8545a967b8c379873ac:
Merge tag 'net-5.18-rc0' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net (2022-03-28 17:02:04 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git
for you to fetch changes up to ccaff3d56acc47c257a99b2807b7c78a9467cf09:
selftests/bpf: Fix clang compilation errors (2022-03-28 20:00:11 -0700)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexei Starovoitov (3):
Merge branch 'fprobe: Fixes for Sparse and Smatch warnings'
Merge branch 'kprobes: rethook: x86: Replace kretprobe trampoline with rethook'
Merge branch 'xsk: another round of fixes'
Andrii Nakryiko (1):
selftests/bpf: fix selftest after random: Urandom_read tracepoint removal
Geliang Tang (1):
bpf: Sync comments for bpf_get_stack
Jiri Olsa (1):
bpftool: Fix generated code in codegen_asserts
Maciej Fijalkowski (2):
ice: xsk: Stop Rx processing when ntc catches ntu
ice: xsk: Fix indexing in ice_tx_xsk_pool()
Magnus Karlsson (2):
xsk: Do not write NULL in SW ring at allocation failure
ice: xsk: Eliminate unnecessary loop iteration
Masami Hiramatsu (5):
fprobe: Fix smatch type mismatch warning
fprobe: Fix sparse warning for acccessing __rcu ftrace_hash
kprobes: Use rethook for kretprobe if possible
x86,rethook,kprobes: Replace kretprobe with rethook on x86
x86,kprobes: Fix optprobe trampoline to generate complete pt_regs
Milan Landaverde (1):
bpf/bpftool: Add unprivileged_bpf_disabled check against value of 2
Peter Zijlstra (1):
x86,rethook: Fix arch_rethook_trampoline() to generate a complete pt_regs
Yonghong Song (1):
selftests/bpf: Fix clang compilation errors
Yuntao Wang (1):
bpf: Fix maximum permitted number of arguments check
arch/Kconfig | 8 +-
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h | 23 ++--
arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/common.h | 1 +
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 107 -----------------
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/opt.c | 25 ++--
arch/x86/kernel/rethook.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 10 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice.h | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_xsk.c | 5 +-
include/linux/kprobes.h | 51 ++++++++-
kernel/Makefile | 1 +
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
kernel/kprobes.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++----
kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 8 +-
kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 4 +-
net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c | 8 +-
tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c | 5 +-
tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c | 2 +-
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8 +-
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_stack_raw_tp.c | 3 -
.../selftests/bpf/progs/test_stacktrace_build_id.c | 12 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c | 3 +-
24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/rethook.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-29 23:49 pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-30 1:41 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 4:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2022-03-30 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: davem, daniel, peterz, mhiramat, andrii, netdev, bpf, kernel-team On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > The main changes are: > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. As in harmless but not erroneous. kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) 67 { 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); 69 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); 71 } Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right, first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user: kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: expected void const [noderef] __user *from kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: got void const *usyms kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: expected char const [noderef] __user *src kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: got char const * kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: expected void const *usyms kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms How do you wanna proceed? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 1:41 ` Jakub Kicinski @ 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 2:02 ` Jakub Kicinski ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-30 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Masami Hiramatsu, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > The main changes are: > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > As in harmless but not erroneous. Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > 67 { > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > 69 > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > 71 } > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? Masami, please take a look. > And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right, > first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user: > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: expected void const [noderef] __user *from > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: got void const *usyms > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: expected char const [noderef] __user *src > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: got char const * > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: expected void const *usyms > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms This one is known. Still waiting for the fix from Jiri. > How do you wanna proceed? If they both are old I would proceed. I don't consider sparse warnings as a blocker in general. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-30 2:02 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-30 4:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2022-03-30 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Masami Hiramatsu, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? Erm, you're right. No idea how the build bot can generate a warning that's present on both source and target branch :S I'll look into that while the my local build runs... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 2:02 ` Jakub Kicinski @ 2022-03-30 4:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 9:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-30 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Masami Hiramatsu, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > 67 { > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > 69 > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > 71 } > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > Masami, please take a look. Yeah, I think we should make this rcu pointer (and read side must use rcu_dereference()) because this rh->handler becomes the key to disable this rethook. Let me fix that. Thanks, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 4:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-30 9:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 15:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-30 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:52:17 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > > 67 { > > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > > 69 > > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > > 71 } > > > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > > > Masami, please take a look. > > Yeah, I think we should make this rcu pointer (and read side must use rcu_dereference()) > because this rh->handler becomes the key to disable this rethook. > Let me fix that. Sorry, please ignore this. Since the handler pointed by rh->handler never be removed (unless removed by modules, but this will not happen while the rethook is running), YES, WRITE_ONCE() is enough. Please add below. From 92c9c784458f03900823360981812220ce3c7bf3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:42 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler Since the function pointered by rethook::handler never be removed when the rethook is alive, it doesn't need to use rcu_assign_pointer() to update it. Just use WRITE_ONCE(). Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> --- kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c index ab463a4d2b23..b56833700d23 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void rethook_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) */ void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) { - rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); + WRITE_ONCE(rh->handler, NULL); call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); } -- 2.25.1 -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 9:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-30 15:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-31 1:11 ` [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-31 1:12 ` pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Masami Hiramatsu 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-30 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:15 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:52:17 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > > > > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > > > 67 { > > > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > > > 69 > > > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > > > 71 } > > > > > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > > > > > Masami, please take a look. > > > > Yeah, I think we should make this rcu pointer (and read side must use rcu_dereference()) > > because this rh->handler becomes the key to disable this rethook. > > Let me fix that. > > Sorry, please ignore this. Since the handler pointed by rh->handler never > be removed (unless removed by modules, but this will not happen while > the rethook is running), YES, WRITE_ONCE() is enough. > Please add below. > > From 92c9c784458f03900823360981812220ce3c7bf3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:42 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler > > Since the function pointered by rethook::handler never be removed when > the rethook is alive, it doesn't need to use rcu_assign_pointer() to > update it. Just use WRITE_ONCE(). > > Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Could you please send it as a proper patch so it registers in patchwork? > --- > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > index ab463a4d2b23..b56833700d23 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void rethook_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) > */ > void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > { > - rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > + WRITE_ONCE(rh->handler, NULL); > > call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > } > -- > 2.25.1 > -- > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler 2022-03-30 15:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov @ 2022-03-31 1:11 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-31 2:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf 2022-03-31 1:12 ` pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Masami Hiramatsu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-31 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov, Alexei Starovoitov Cc: davem, daniel, peterz, mhiramat, kuba, andrii, netdev, bpf, kernel-team Since the function pointered by rethook::handler never be removed when the rethook is alive, it doesn't need to use rcu_assign_pointer() to update it. Just use WRITE_ONCE(). Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> --- kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c index ab463a4d2b23..b56833700d23 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void rethook_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) */ void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) { - rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); + WRITE_ONCE(rh->handler, NULL); call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler 2022-03-31 1:11 ` [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-31 2:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2022-03-31 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: ast, alexei.starovoitov, davem, daniel, peterz, kuba, andrii, netdev, bpf, kernel-team Hello: This patch was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master) by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>: On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:11:17 +0900 you wrote: > Since the function pointered by rethook::handler never be removed when > the rethook is alive, it doesn't need to use rcu_assign_pointer() to > update it. Just use WRITE_ONCE(). > > Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/a2fb49833cad You are awesome, thank you! -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 15:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-31 1:11 ` [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-31 1:12 ` Masami Hiramatsu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-31 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:09:59 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:15 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:52:17 +0900 > > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 > > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > > > > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > > > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > > > > > > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > > > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > > > > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > > > > 67 { > > > > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > > > > 69 > > > > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > > > > 71 } > > > > > > > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > > > > > > > Masami, please take a look. > > > > > > Yeah, I think we should make this rcu pointer (and read side must use rcu_dereference()) > > > because this rh->handler becomes the key to disable this rethook. > > > Let me fix that. > > > > Sorry, please ignore this. Since the handler pointed by rh->handler never > > be removed (unless removed by modules, but this will not happen while > > the rethook is running), YES, WRITE_ONCE() is enough. > > Please add below. > > > > From 92c9c784458f03900823360981812220ce3c7bf3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:13:42 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler > > > > Since the function pointered by rethook::handler never be removed when > > the rethook is alive, it doesn't need to use rcu_assign_pointer() to > > update it. Just use WRITE_ONCE(). > > > > Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Could you please send it as a proper patch so it registers in patchwork? Sure, I sent the patch. BTW, I marked it as "bpf" instead of "bpf-next", was that OK? (It seems bpf-next was not updated yet) Thank you, > > > --- > > kernel/trace/rethook.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rethook.c b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > index ab463a4d2b23..b56833700d23 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/rethook.c > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void rethook_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) > > */ > > void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > { > > - rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > + WRITE_ONCE(rh->handler, NULL); > > > > call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > } > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > -- > > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 2:02 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-30 4:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu @ 2022-03-30 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa 2022-03-30 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jiri Olsa @ 2022-03-30 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Masami Hiramatsu, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:51:22PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > 67 { > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > 69 > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > 71 } > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > Masami, please take a look. > > > And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right, > > first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user: > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: expected void const [noderef] __user *from > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: got void const *usyms > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: expected char const [noderef] __user *src > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: got char const * > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: expected void const *usyms > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms > > This one is known. Still waiting for the fix from Jiri. right, I replied that for some reason I can't see these warnings with 'make C=2' and latest sparse.. how do you run that? if patch below fixes it for you, I can send formal patch quickly jirka --- diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index d8553f46caa2..7fa2ebc07f60 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -2349,11 +2349,11 @@ kprobe_multi_link_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip, } static int -kprobe_multi_resolve_syms(const void __user *usyms, u32 cnt, +kprobe_multi_resolve_syms(const void *usyms, u32 cnt, unsigned long *addrs) { unsigned long addr, size; - const char __user **syms; + const char **syms; int err = -ENOMEM; unsigned int i; char *func; ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-30 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa @ 2022-03-30 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jiri Olsa @ 2022-03-30 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Jakub Kicinski, David S. Miller, Daniel Borkmann, Peter Zijlstra, Masami Hiramatsu, Andrii Nakryiko, Network Development, bpf, Kernel Team On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:51:22PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > > 67 { > > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > > 69 > > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > > 71 } > > > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > > > Masami, please take a look. > > > > > And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right, > > > first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user: > > > > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: expected void const [noderef] __user *from > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: got void const *usyms > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: expected char const [noderef] __user *src > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: got char const * > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: expected void const *usyms > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms > > > > This one is known. Still waiting for the fix from Jiri. > > right, I replied that for some reason I can't see these warnings > with 'make C=2' and latest sparse.. how do you run that? > > if patch below fixes it for you, I can send formal patch quickly ok, I was on top of bpf-next/master where it's still reverted, I can hit that on bpf/master, I'll send the fix jirka ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 2022-03-29 23:49 pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 1:41 ` Jakub Kicinski @ 2022-03-30 4:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2022-03-30 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: davem, daniel, peterz, mhiramat, kuba, andrii, netdev, bpf, kernel-team Hello: This pull request was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 you wrote: > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/77c9387c0c5b You are awesome, thank you! -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-31 2:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-03-29 23:49 pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 1:41 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-30 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-30 2:02 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-30 4:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 9:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 15:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov 2022-03-31 1:11 ` [PATCH bpf] rethook: Fix to use WRITE_ONCE() for rethook::handler Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-31 2:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf 2022-03-31 1:12 ` pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 Masami Hiramatsu 2022-03-30 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa 2022-03-30 11:01 ` Jiri Olsa 2022-03-30 4:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.