From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:11:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190125041152.GA4240@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez0+pPq3OJpYnXEidNqN9vi13K0BO-pg1XLu59kPx4c+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:46:55AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:22 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 04:05:16PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:42:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:56:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:01:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for having kernel/locking people on Cc...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:13:55PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Implementation details:
> > > > > > > - on !SMP bpf_spin_lock() becomes nop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because no BPF program is preemptible? I don't see any assertions or
> > > > > > even a comment that says this code is non-preemptible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AFAICT some of the BPF_RUN_PROG things are under rcu_read_lock() only,
> > > > > > which is not sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > - on architectures that don't support queued_spin_lock trivial lock is used.
> > > > > > > Note that arch_spin_lock cannot be used, since not all archs agree that
> > > > > > > zero == unlocked and sizeof(arch_spinlock_t) != sizeof(__u32).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really don't much like direct usage of qspinlock; esp. not as a
> > > > > > surprise.
> > > >
> > > > Substituting the lightweight-reader SRCU as discussed earlier would allow
> > > > use of a more generic locking primitive, for example, one that allowed
> > > > blocking, at least in cases were the context allowed this.
> > > >
> > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> > > > branch srcu-lr.2019.01.16a.
> > > >
> > > > One advantage of a more generic locking primitive would be keeping BPF
> > > > programs independent of internal changes to spinlock primitives.
> > >
> > > Let's keep "srcu in bpf" discussion separate from bpf_spin_lock discussion.
> > > bpf is not switching to srcu any time soon.
> > > If/when it happens it will be only for certain prog+map types
> > > like bpf syscall probes that need to be able to do copy_from_user
> > > from bpf prog.
> >
> > Hmmm... What prevents BPF programs from looping infinitely within an
> > RCU reader, and as you noted, preemption disabled?
> >
> > If BPF programs are in fact allowed to loop infinitely, it would be
> > very good for the health of the kernel to have preemption enabled.
> > And to be within an SRCU read-side critical section instead of an RCU
> > read-side critical section.
>
> The BPF verifier prevents loops; this is in push_insn() in
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c, which errors out with -EINVAL when a back edge
> is encountered. For non-root programs, that limits the maximum number
> of instructions per eBPF engine execution to
> BPF_MAXINSNS*MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT==4096*32==131072 (but that includes
> call instructions, which can cause relatively expensive operations
> like hash table lookups). For programs created with CAP_SYS_ADMIN,
> things get more tricky because you can create your own functions and
> call them repeatedly; I'm not sure whether the pessimal runtime there
> becomes exponential, or whether there is some check that catches this.
Whew!!! ;-)
So no more than (say) 100 milliseconds?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-25 4:12 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 [this message]
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
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=20190125041152.GA4240@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.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=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 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).