Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/12] net, sk_msg: Annotate lockless access to sk_prot on clone
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-01-23 19:15:33
Also in:
bpf
Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 06:18 PM CET, Eric Dumazet wrote:quoted
On 1/23/20 7:55 AM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:quoted
sk_msg and ULP frameworks override protocol callbacks pointer in sk->sk_prot, while tcp accesses it locklessly when cloning the listening socket, that is with neither sk_lock nor sk_callback_lock held. Once we enable use of listening sockets with sockmap (and hence sk_msg), there will be shared access to sk->sk_prot if socket is getting cloned while being inserted/deleted to/from the sockmap from another CPU:
[...]
quoted
quoted
include/linux/skmsg.h | 3 ++- net/core/sock.c | 5 +++-- net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 4 +++- net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c | 3 ++- net/tls/tls_main.c | 3 ++- 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h index 41ea1258d15e..55c834a5c25e 100644 --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h@@ -352,7 +352,8 @@ static inline void sk_psock_update_proto(struct sock *sk, psock->saved_write_space = sk->sk_write_space; psock->sk_proto = sk->sk_prot; - sk->sk_prot = ops; + /* Pairs with lockless read in sk_clone_lock() */ + WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_prot, ops);Note there are dozens of calls like if (sk->sk_prot->handler) sk->sk_prot->handler(...); Some of them being done lockless. I know it is painful, but presumably we need
Correct.
quoted
const struct proto *ops = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_prot); if (ops->handler) ops->handler(....);Yikes! That will be quite an audit. Thank you for taking a look. Now I think I understand what John had in mind when asking for pushing these annotations to the bpf tree as well [0].
Yep this is what I meant. But your patches don't make the situation any worse its already there.
Considering these are lacking today, can I do it as a follow up?
In my opinion yes. I think pulling your patches in is OK and I started doing this conversion already so we can have a fix shortly. I didn't want to push it into rc7 though so I'll push it next week or into net-next tree. .John