Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix some bad __rcu annotations in bpf/core.c
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: 2018-07-10 08:03:28
Also in:
lkml
Hi Roman, On 07/10/2018 03:59 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
Sparse shows some "incorrect type" warnings in the bpf core code.
Thanks for taking a stab at these! It would really help if you could split the patch into a small series and fix each individual case that is problematic here. Please also add Fixes tags to the patches. More below.
They are caused by bad __rcu annotations: 1) bpf_prog_array_alloc() returns an __rcu pointer, which isn't true. At that moment it's obviously an exclusive "owning" pointer, which is valid for an infinite amount of time, so __rcu is meaningless. 2) The progs local variable in compute_effective_progs should be marked as __bpf too, it's a local variable, not shared with anyone
Typo: __bpf ?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
else at all. The real __rcu variable is array pointer, which should be assigned with rcu_assign_pointer. 3) __rcu progs argument of bpf_prog_array_free() should be casted to a simple pointer before calling kfree_rcu(). 4) There is a missing rcu_dereference() annotation in bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(). 5) old_array __rcu pointer in bpf_prog_array_copy() is used as a "normal" non-__rcu pointer. These changes remove the following sparse warnings: kernel/bpf/core.c:1544:31: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1544:31: expected struct bpf_prog_array [noderef] <asn:4>* kernel/bpf/core.c:1544:31: got void * kernel/bpf/core.c:1548:17: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1548:17: expected struct bpf_prog_array [noderef] <asn:4>* kernel/bpf/core.c:1548:17: got struct bpf_prog_array *<noident> kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9: expected struct callback_head *head kernel/bpf/core.c:1556:9: got struct callback_head [noderef] <asn:4>*<noident> kernel/bpf/core.c:1629:34: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1629:34: expected struct bpf_prog **prog kernel/bpf/core.c:1629:34: got struct bpf_prog *[noderef] <asn:4>*<noident> kernel/bpf/core.c:1653:31: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1653:31: expected struct bpf_prog **existing_prog kernel/bpf/core.c:1653:31: got struct bpf_prog *[noderef] <asn:4>*<noident> kernel/bpf/core.c:1681:15: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1681:15: expected struct bpf_prog_array *array kernel/bpf/core.c:1681:15: got struct bpf_prog_array [noderef] <asn:4>* kernel/bpf/core.c:1687:31: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces) kernel/bpf/core.c:1687:31: expected struct bpf_prog **[assigned] existing_prog kernel/bpf/core.c:1687:31: got struct bpf_prog *[noderef] <asn:4>*<noident> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <redacted> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> --- include/linux/bpf.h | 2 +- kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 7 +++---- kernel/bpf/core.c | 14 ++++++++------ 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h index 8827e797ff97..943fb08d8287 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_array { struct bpf_prog *progs[0]; }; -struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *bpf_prog_array_alloc(u32 prog_cnt, gfp_t flags); +struct bpf_prog_array *bpf_prog_array_alloc(u32 prog_cnt, gfp_t flags); void bpf_prog_array_free(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs); int bpf_prog_array_length(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs); int bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs,diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c index 3d83ee7df381..badabb0b435c 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static int compute_effective_progs(struct cgroup *cgrp, enum bpf_attach_type type, struct bpf_prog_array __rcu **array) { - struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs; + struct bpf_prog_array *progs; struct bpf_prog_list *pl; struct cgroup *p = cgrp; int cnt = 0;@@ -120,13 +120,12 @@ static int compute_effective_progs(struct cgroup *cgrp, &p->bpf.progs[type], node) { if (!pl->prog) continue; - rcu_dereference_protected(progs, 1)-> - progs[cnt++] = pl->prog; + progs->progs[cnt++] = pl->prog; } p = cgroup_parent(p); } while (p); - *array = progs; + rcu_assign_pointer(*array, progs); return 0; }diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 1e5625d46414..f6e5b207a0d7 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c@@ -1538,7 +1538,7 @@ static struct { .null_prog = NULL, }; -struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *bpf_prog_array_alloc(u32 prog_cnt, gfp_t flags) +struct bpf_prog_array *bpf_prog_array_alloc(u32 prog_cnt, gfp_t flags) { if (prog_cnt) return kzalloc(sizeof(struct bpf_prog_array) +@@ -1550,10 +1550,11 @@ struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *bpf_prog_array_alloc(u32 prog_cnt, gfp_t flags)
Looks good to me to here.
void bpf_prog_array_free(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs)
{
- if (!progs ||
- progs == (struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *)&empty_prog_array.hdr)
+ struct bpf_prog_array *array = rcu_access_pointer(progs);Can you elaborate on the rcu_access_pointer() part? This looks odd, at minimum this needs a comment explaining why it's needed. Is the __rcu annotation above even correct?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ + if (!array || array == &empty_prog_array.hdr) return; - kfree_rcu(progs, rcu); + kfree_rcu(array, rcu); } int bpf_prog_array_length(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs)@@ -1626,7 +1627,7 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs, void bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs, struct bpf_prog *old_prog) { - struct bpf_prog **prog = progs->progs; + struct bpf_prog **prog = rcu_dereference(progs)->progs;
Can you elaborate here as well? __rcu annotation buggy instead?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
for (; *prog; prog++) if (*prog == old_prog) {@@ -1635,11 +1636,12 @@ void bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs, } } -int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *old_array, +int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *__old_array, struct bpf_prog *exclude_prog, struct bpf_prog *include_prog, struct bpf_prog_array **new_array) { + struct bpf_prog_array *old_array = rcu_access_pointer(__old_array);
Same comment here, this doesn't look right. We even fetch old_array->progs from it later on in this path.
int new_prog_cnt, carry_prog_cnt = 0; struct bpf_prog **existing_prog; struct bpf_prog_array *array;
Thanks, Daniel