Re: [RESEND PATCH bpf-next v6 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add tests for open-coded task and css iter

[Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>]

在 2023/10/20 08:03, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:18 PM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +SEC("?fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
>> +__failure __msg("css_task_iter is only allowed in bpf_lsm and bpf iter-s")
>> +int BPF_PROG(iter_css_task_for_each)
>> +{
>> +       u64 cg_id = bpf_get_current_cgroup_id();
>> +       struct cgroup *cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(cg_id);
>> +       struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> +       struct task_struct *task;
>> +
>> +       if (cgrp == NULL)
>> +               return 0;
>> +       css = &cgrp->self;
>> +
>> +       bpf_for_each(css_task, task, css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS) {
>> +
>> +       }
>> +       bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
> 
> I think we should relax allowlist in patch 2 further.
> Any sleepable is safe.
> Allowlist is needed to avoid dead locking on css_set_lock.
> Any lsm and any iter (even non-sleepable) and any sleepable
> seems to be safe.

Yes, I just try to read the corresponding code. IIUC, the key point here 
is we should not hold the css_set_lock before we invoking a BPF Prog 
which may use css_task iters.

1. For lsm hooks and task_iters, it would be clearly know from the code 
that we would not try to hold that lock.

2. For cgroup_iters, we will hold the cgroup_muetx before we enter the 
Prog and it's OK.(see __cgroup_procs_write())

3. For any sleepable progs, bpf_check_attach_target() would only allow 
them to attach some sepecifc hooks, currently, these hooks are OK.


Thanks for the suggestion again! I would do it.