From: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<martin.lau@linux.dev>, <song@kernel.org>, <yhs@fb.com>,
<kpsingh@kernel.org>, <sdf@google.com>, <haoluo@google.com>,
<jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Unregister fentry when bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog fails to update image
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:05:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7e023c28-abe5-25a6-150d-ff8a782992de@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e36407a-22fb-0fc1-b147-ebdc12ea0823@meta.com>
On 2023/4/28 2:54, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Fix this when bpf_trampoline_update failed in
>>>> bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog,
>>>> unregister fentry to disable the trampoline. Then other progs on the
>>>> trampoline can be unlinked safely and finally the trampoline will be
>>>> released.
>>>
>>> Do we still leak tr->cur_image here?
>>>
>> No, bpf_tramp_image_put() will free everything when all progs_cnt
>> decline to zero in bpf_trampoline_update(). It is a release function,
>> but called 'put'.
>
> Okay, I see. But it depends on where memory allocation failure
> happens. For example, see below:
>
> static int bpf_trampoline_update(struct bpf_trampoline *tr,
> bool lock_direct_mutex)
> {
> struct bpf_tramp_image *im;
> struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks;
> u32 orig_flags = tr->flags;
> bool ip_arg = false;
> int err, total;
>
> tlinks = bpf_trampoline_get_progs(tr, &total, &ip_arg);
> if (IS_ERR(tlinks))
> return PTR_ERR(tlinks);
>
> if (total == 0) {
> err = unregister_fentry(tr, tr->cur_image->image);
> bpf_tramp_image_put(tr->cur_image);
> tr->cur_image = NULL;
> tr->selector = 0;
> goto out;
> }
>
> im = bpf_tramp_image_alloc(tr->key, tr->selector);
> if (IS_ERR(im)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(im);
> goto out;
> }
>
> ...
>
> In bpf_trampoline_get_progs(),
>
> static struct bpf_tramp_links *
> bpf_trampoline_get_progs(const struct bpf_trampoline *tr, int
> *total, bool *ip_arg)
> {
> struct bpf_tramp_link *link;
> struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks;
> struct bpf_tramp_link **links;
> int kind;
>
> *total = 0;
> tlinks = kcalloc(BPF_TRAMP_MAX, sizeof(*tlinks), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> If we have memory allocation failure, PTR_ERR(tlinks) will be returned
> and there is no chance to reach 'total == 0' so tr->cur_image will not
> be freed.
>
> But if the memory allocation failure happens in
> bpf_tramp_image_alloc(...), yes, it is possible eventually when
> all progs are unlinked, 'total' could be 0, unregister_fentry()
> will be called again (hopefully no side effect) and the image
> will be freed.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 88fd9e5352fe ("bpf: Refactor trampoline update code")
>>>
>>> If the above is a refactoring patch, you should not use that
>>> as 'Fixes' patch, you should pick one truely introduced the issue.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 5 ++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>>> index d0ed7d6f5eec..6daa93b30e81 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>>> @@ -604,7 +604,10 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct
>>>> bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_
>>>> }
>>>> hlist_del_init(&link->tramp_hlist);
>>>> tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
>>>> - return bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
>>>> + err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
>>>> + if (err && tr->cur_image)
>>>> + unregister_fentry(tr, tr->cur_image->image);
>>>
>>> If error happens for the all subsequent programs,
>>> unregister_fentry() will be called multiple times. Any side effect?
>> It will fail with no side effect. Actually if there is no error,
>> modify_fentry() will fail in update() as well. The fentry is available
>> until all progs are unlinked and the broken image is freed by
>> bpf_tramp_image_put().
>
> This will cause a sudden behavior change if there are other active
> programs. For example, prog1 and prog2, prog1 unlink triggered
> memory allocation failure and caused unregister_fentry which restored
> the original ip. Then prog2 even does not have a chance to run any
> more even if memory suddenly not an issue any more.
>
>>
>> However with an extra state to record this happens, it's possible to
>> re-register the fentry with new image when the next link/unlink calls
>> update(). It will generate a new image and replace/free the error one.
>>>
>>> Overall, I think this is an extreme corner case which happens
>>> when kernel memory is extreme tight. If this is the case, not
>>> sure whether it is worthwhile to fix it or not.
>>>
>> Yes, it's a really rare case. I'm just not sure whether it needs some
>> best-effort to avoid kernel panic at this point.
>>
>> If you think it's not necessary. Just let it go.
>
> At least with current patch, even we could avoid kernel panic, the
> user expected behavior might change. To handle all error conditions
> in bpf_trampoline_update() might be a big task. So I suggest to just
> let it go.
>
You are right. It's difficult to handle all errors, especially when
problem occurs inside the ftrace process.
So just keep it as is until there is better solution.
>>
>> Thanks for your time!
>>
>> Best,
>> Chen
>>>> + return err;
>>>> }
>>>> /* bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog() should never fail. */
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-28 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-26 9:55 Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-26 18:17 ` Yonghong Song
2023-04-27 1:40 ` Chen Zhongjin
2023-04-27 18:54 ` Yonghong Song
2023-04-28 1:05 ` Chen Zhongjin [this message]
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=7e023c28-abe5-25a6-150d-ff8a782992de@huawei.com \
--to=chenzhongjin@huawei.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@meta.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®