From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9BCC2D0A3 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB34920870 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 01:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="hDViSq+n" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728420AbgKDB1g (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:27:36 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37220 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725769AbgKDB1g (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:27:36 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x241.google.com (mail-lj1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::241]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F65C040203; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x241.google.com with SMTP id t13so21108122ljk.12; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:27:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YEAfa71F3RcjJKMcoFNETu5MYla8QPOqFeyC5ZSEg5Y=; b=hDViSq+nsPw95gkn0wsOimJQVOF80z7bBZQtasvuxdTX9uF6TYJItlxP8E0B+RqBx+ 0666BcbIgbo+K+Lsjev9FU42BKYlNXxevFJLAw0ZoN5fMOlH9Ar8x1YmmGDbcUXhtvIN 2Oc5YGGeiQ2VasjcmeUQjTG9bl6+BlfnZr5kJ2EJgo6LdyDDvB70OGf9gUJtzpKUfgvt y7xUP1DEBWKQlqLFe0YBt1pmmoVmZt0SRXRzIJh3WyuB6lu+T4gPmqFh/Vz2TCxzdUP1 B+Yf+n9RyFgEffu2CGJn9vIIxesWIOwMNj0+3obL8F7oBwCOwQemNxdaWJnNL7Yh5bPJ E0ng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YEAfa71F3RcjJKMcoFNETu5MYla8QPOqFeyC5ZSEg5Y=; b=NxLRenwI0jw0/v32HPp2Zhkjg6+Tr+VhVl65FyOSUG6QeEEyueF4FeTB3Fg3iQm1x/ zG2unwWQx5Ebz2DHh8/lWgPMILahax5cGw6RpuksucK40bveiwzmCxhqz8bHJyB68Yfm 0YfZCu4Nl6sGuhSDFBPZ+O7sPtLfSQJOt8nATONgyMsoKit9+joA0MQhMtH7AAePBXEJ sY4HsMJIwvw5IG95rreE4mpfD5fAvBY4i7FXAJEYZJ78XQeDiAKsuZrusDBSgwduGCWu XW/bnkJ8NLafF+LpEJi5BpMV/jRVyr8YkrWDj4FCQ7ewnzpg0DE8EKa10906ZZ343cNl O/rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ynCtxdHFO6rvU/f2/6WXTVw+uCXf1CajWuBevdt8A+wFKpoO1 G567UP7fyzn7Y7EXqyyT7ssibfHpBA7+iidwKE4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoRhezbY7tyeiJ3/1HM6PGOTDEIJw8OZsS7jJK1vVvt8ivJFZtiIeNgg8x/gTCMlGll3RhY+d1FH+bUGkH3Y4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0f8:: with SMTP id h24mr9997538ljl.2.1604453254171; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:27:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201103153132.2717326-1-kpsingh@chromium.org> <20201103153132.2717326-8-kpsingh@chromium.org> <20201103184714.iukuqfw2byls3s4k@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:27:22 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf: Add tests for task_local_storage To: KP Singh Cc: open list , bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Paul Turner , Jann Horn , Hao Luo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:05 PM KP Singh wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM KP Singh wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:31:31PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > > + > > > > +struct storage { > > > > + void *inode; > > > > + unsigned int value; > > > > + /* Lock ensures that spin locked versions of local stoage operations > > > > + * also work, most operations in this tests are still single threaded > > > > + */ > > > > + struct bpf_spin_lock lock; > > > > +}; > > > > > > I think it's a good idea to test spin_lock in local_storage, > > > but it seems the test is not doing it fully. > > > It's only adding it to the storage, but the program is not accessing it. > > > > I added it here just to check if the offset calculations (map->spin_lock_off) > > are correctly happening for these new maps. > > > > As mentioned in the updates, I do intend to generalize > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/sk_storage_map.c which already has > > the threading logic to exercise bpf_spin_lock in storage maps. > > > > Actually, after I added simple bpf_spin_{lock, unlock} to the test programs, I > ended up realizing that we have not exposed spin locks to LSM programs > for now, this is because they inherit the tracing helpers. > > I saw the docs mention that these are not exposed to tracing programs due to > insufficient preemption checks. Do you think it would be okay to allow them > for LSM programs? hmm. Isn't it allowed already? The verifier does: if ((is_tracing_prog_type(prog_type) || prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER) && map_value_has_spin_lock(map)) { verbose(env, "tracing progs cannot use bpf_spin_lock yet\n"); return -EINVAL; } BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM is not in this list.