Hello, Daniel.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:

+void cgroup_bpf_free(struct cgroup *cgrp)
+{
+	unsigned int type;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+
+	for (type = 0; type < __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE; type++) {
+		if (!cgrp->bpf.prog[type])
+			continue;
+
+		bpf_prog_put(cgrp->bpf.prog[type]);
+		static_branch_dec(&cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
+	}
+
+	rcu_read_unlock();

These rcu locking seem suspicious to me.  RCU locking on writer side
is usually bogus.  We sometimes do it to work around locking
assertions in accessors but it's a better idea to make the assertions
better in those cases - e.g. sth like assert_mylock_or_rcu_locked().

+void cgroup_bpf_inherit(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup *parent)
+{
+	unsigned int type;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();

Ditto.

+	for (type = 0; type < __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE; type++)
+		rcu_assign_pointer(cgrp->bpf.prog_effective[type],
+			rcu_dereference(parent->bpf.prog_effective[type]));
+
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+}

...

+void __cgroup_bpf_update(struct cgroup *cgrp,
+			 struct cgroup *parent,
+			 struct bpf_prog *prog,
+			 enum bpf_attach_type type)
+{
+	struct bpf_prog *old_prog, *effective;
+	struct cgroup_subsys_state *pos;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();

Ditto.

+	old_prog = xchg(cgrp->bpf.prog + type, prog);
+	if (old_prog) {
+		bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
+		static_branch_dec(&cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
+	}
+
+	if (prog)
+		static_branch_inc(&cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);

Minor but probably better to inc first and then dec so that you can
avoid unnecessary enabled -> disabled -> enabled sequence.

+	effective = (!prog && parent) ?
+		rcu_dereference(parent->bpf.prog_effective[type]) : prog;

If this is what's triggering rcu warnings, there's an accessor to use
in these situations.

+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	css_for_each_descendant_pre(pos, &cgrp->self) {

On the other hand, this walk actually requires rcu read locking unless
you're holding cgroup_mutex.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun