bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:59:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABRcYm+pO94dFW83SZCtKQE8x6PkRicr+exGD3CNwGwQUYmFcw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzaHqvxuosYP32WLSs_wxeJ9FfR2wGRKqsocXHCJUXVycw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:03 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:51 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:35 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> > <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> > >         u64 args[MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS] = { arg1, arg2, arg3 };
> > > -       enum bpf_printf_mod_type mod[MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS];
> > > +       u32 *bin_args;
> > >         static char buf[BPF_TRACE_PRINTK_SIZE];
> > >         unsigned long flags;
> > >         int ret;
> > >
> > > -       ret = bpf_printf_prepare(fmt, fmt_size, args, args, mod,
> > > -                                MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS);
> > > +       ret = bpf_bprintf_prepare(fmt, fmt_size, args, &bin_args,
> > > +                                 MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS);
> > >         if (ret < 0)
> > >                 return ret;
> > >
> > > -       ret = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(0, args, mod),
> > > -               BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(1, args, mod), BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(2, args, mod));
> > > -       /* snprintf() will not append null for zero-length strings */
> > > -       if (ret == 0)
> > > -               buf[0] = '\0';
> > > +       ret = bstr_printf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, bin_args);
> > >
> > >         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&trace_printk_lock, flags);
> > >         trace_bpf_trace_printk(buf);
> > >         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&trace_printk_lock, flags);
> > >
> > > Why isn't the write to buf[] protected by that spinlock? Or put another
> > > way, what protects buf[] from concurrent writes?
> >
> > You're right, that is a bug, I missed that buf was static and thought
> > it was just on the stack. That snprintf call should be after the
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave. I'll send a patch. Thank you Rasmus. (before my
> > snprintf series, there was a vsprintf after the raw_spin_lock_irqsave)

Solved now

> Can you please also clean up unnecessary ()s you added in at least a
> few places. Thanks.

Alexei said he took care of this .:)

> > > Probably the test cases are not run in parallel, but this is the kind of
> > > thing that would give those symptoms.
> >
> > I think it's a separate issue from what Andrii reported though because
> > the flaky test exercises the bpf_snprintf helper and this buf spinlock
> > bug you just found only affects the bpf_trace_printk helper.
> >
> > That being said, it does smell a little bit like a concurrency issue
> > too, indeed. The bpf_snprintf test program is a raw_tp/sys_enter so it
> > attaches to all syscall entries and most likely gets executed many
> > more times than necessary and probably on parallel CPUs. The "pad_out"
> > buffer they write to is unique and not locked so maybe the test's
> > userspace reads pad_out while another CPU is writing on it and if the
> > string output goes through a stage where it is "    4 0000" before
> > being "    4 000", we might read at the wrong time. That being said, I
> > would find it weird that this happens as much as 50% of the time and
> > always specifically on that test case.
> >
> > Andrii could you maybe try changing the prog type to
> > "tp/syscalls/sys_enter_nanosleep" on the machine where you can
> > reproduce this bug ?
>
> Yes, it helps. I can't repro it easily anymore.

Good, so it does sound like a concurrency issue indeed

> I think the right fix, though, should be to filter by tid, not change the tracepoint.

Agreed, I'll send a patch for that today. :)

> I think what's happening is we see the string right before bstr_printf
> does zero-termination with end[-1] = '\0'; So in some cases we see
> truncated string, in others we see untruncated one.

Makes sense but I still wonder why it happens so often (50% of the
time is really a lot) and why it is consistently that one test case
that fails and not the "overflow" case for example. But I'm confident
that this is not a bug in the helper now and that the tid filter will
fix the test.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-28 15:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-19 15:52 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Add a snprintf eBPF helper Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/6] bpf: Factorize bpf_trace_printk and bpf_seq_printf Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/6] bpf: Add a ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR argument type Florent Revest
2021-04-19 22:54   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-04-20 12:35     ` Florent Revest
2021-04-20 15:23       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-04-22  8:41         ` Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/6] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/6] libbpf: Initialize the bpf_seq_printf parameters array field by field Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/6] libbpf: Introduce a BPF_SNPRINTF helper macro Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf Florent Revest
2021-04-23 22:38   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-26 10:10     ` Florent Revest
2021-04-26 16:19       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-26 21:08         ` Florent Revest
2021-04-27  6:35           ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-04-27  9:50             ` Florent Revest
2021-04-27 18:03               ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-28 14:59                 ` Florent Revest [this message]
2021-05-05  6:55                   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-05-05 14:25                     ` Florent Revest
2021-04-19 19:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Add a snprintf eBPF helper Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-20 12:02   ` Florent Revest

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=CABRcYm+pO94dFW83SZCtKQE8x6PkRicr+exGD3CNwGwQUYmFcw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=revest@chromium.org \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf' \
    /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

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).