Thread (42 messages) flat view 42 messages, 9 authors, 2020-02-21

Re: [RFC patch 09/19] bpf: Use BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() at simple call sites.

From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Date: 2020-02-19 01:38:05
Also in: bpf, lkml

Hi,

Thomas Gleixner [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

All of these cases are strictly of the form:

	preempt_disable();
	BPF_PROG_RUN(...);
	preempt_enable();

Replace this with BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() which wraps BPF_PROG_RUN()
with:

	migrate_disable();
	BPF_PROG_RUN(...);
	migrate_enable();

On non RT enabled kernels this maps to preempt_disable/enable() and on RT
enabled kernels this solely prevents migration, which is sufficient as
there is no requirement to prevent reentrancy to any BPF program from a
preempting task. The only requirement is that the program stays on the same
CPU.

Therefore, this is a trivially correct transformation.

[ tglx: Converted to BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() ]

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <redacted>

---
 include/linux/filter.h    |    4 +---
 kernel/seccomp.c          |    4 +---
 net/core/flow_dissector.c |    4 +---
 net/core/skmsg.c          |    8 ++------
 net/kcm/kcmsock.c         |    4 +---
 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -713,9 +713,7 @@ static inline u32 bpf_prog_run_clear_cb(
 	if (unlikely(prog->cb_access))
 		memset(cb_data, 0, BPF_SKB_CB_LEN);
 
-	preempt_disable();
-	res = BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, skb);
-	preempt_enable();
+	res = BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU(prog, skb);
 	return res;
 }
 
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -268,16 +268,14 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const str
 	 * All filters in the list are evaluated and the lowest BPF return
 	 * value always takes priority (ignoring the DATA).
 	 */
-	preempt_disable();
 	for (; f; f = f->prev) {
-		u32 cur_ret = BPF_PROG_RUN(f->prog, sd);
+		u32 cur_ret = BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU(f->prog, sd);
More a question really, isn't the behavior changing here? i.e. shouldn't
migrate_disable()/migrate_enable() be moved to outside the loop? Or is
running seccomp filters on different cpus not a problem?

-- 
Vinicius
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help