From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:09:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190125100906.GB4500@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190124235857.xyb5xx2ufr6x5mbt@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:58:59PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:01:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So clearly this map stuff is shared between bpf proglets, otherwise
> > there would not be a need for locking. But what happens if one is from
> > task context and another from IRQ context?
> >
> > I don't see a local_irq_save()/restore() anywhere. What avoids the
> > trivial lock inversion?
>
> > 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.
What about the progs that run from SoftIRQ ? Since that bpf_prog_active
thing isn't inside BPF_PROG_RUN() what is to stop say:
reuseport_select_sock()
...
BPF_PROG_RUN()
bpf_spin_lock()
<IRQ>
...
BPF_PROG_RUN()
bpf_spin_lock() // forever more
</IRQ>
Unless you stick that bpf_prog_active stuff inside BPF_PROG_RUN itself,
I don't see how you can fundamentally avoid this happening (now or in
the future).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-25 10:09 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
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 [this message]
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=20190125100906.GB4500@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--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=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).