All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	jannh@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:44:20 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9e1fa851-e189-ab17-ae34-236cc6b5a8b4@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190125023402.34a5k62furpdismi@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>



On 01/24/2019 06:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:29:55PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/24/2019 03:58 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:01:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>>> and from NMI ...
>>>
>>> progs are not preemptable and map syscall accessors have bpf_prog_active counters.
>>> So nmi/kprobe progs will not be running when syscall is running.
>>> Hence dead lock is not possible and irq_save is not needed.
>>
>>
>> Speaking of NMI, how pcpu_freelist_push() and pop() can actually work ?
>>
>> It seems bpf_get_stackid() can be called from NMI, and lockdep seems to complain loudly
> 
> it's a known false positive.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756
> and the same answer as before:
> we're not going to penalize performance to shut up false positive.
> 

As far as lockdep is concerned, I do not believe we care about performance.

How can we remove this false positive, so that lockdep stays alive even after running bpf  test_progs ?


Let see if we understood this well.

1. create perf event PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE:PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES
2. attach bpf probram to this event 
3. since that's a hw event, the bpf program is executed in NMI context
4. the bpf program calls bpf_get_stackid to record the trace in a bpf map
5. bpf_get_stackid calls pcpu_freelist_pop and pcpu_freelist_push from NMI
6. userspace calls sys_bpf(bpf_map_lookup_elem) which calls bpf_stackmap_copy which can call pcpu_freelist_push


It seems pcpu_freelist_pop and pcpu_freelist_push are not NMI safe,
so what prevents bad things to happen ?

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-25  2:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-24  4:13 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/9] introduce bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 18:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 18:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 23:42       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  0:05         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  1:22           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  1:46             ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:38               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:27                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:31                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:47                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 16:02                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:11               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 16:18                 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 22:51                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 23:44                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-26  0:43                       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-26  0:59                         ` Jann Horn
2019-01-24 23:58     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  0:18       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:49         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:29       ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25  2:34         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:44           ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2019-01-25  2:57             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  8:38               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25  9:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 23:42         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:31           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 20:49               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:37             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  8:59               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:20                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  9:59       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:09       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-26  0:17         ` bpf memory model. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  9:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:56             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  9:16               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:32                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30  8:58                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 19:36                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 18:11               ` Will Deacon
2019-01-30 18:36                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:51                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 21:05                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 22:57                       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-31 14:01                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-31 18:47                           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-02-01 14:05                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:50                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: add support for bpf_spin_lock to cgroup local storage Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 3/9] tools/bpf: sync include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 4/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 5/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 6/9] bpf: introduce BPF_F_LOCK flag Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] tools/bpf: sync uapi/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov

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=9e1fa851-e189-ab17-ae34-236cc6b5a8b4@gmail.com \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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 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.