Re: [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test freeing sockmap/sockhash with a socket in it

Jakub Sitnicki wrote:

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 03:41 AM CET, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:28 AM Jakub Sitnicki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Commit 7e81a3530206 ("bpf: Sockmap, ensure sock lock held during tear
down") introduced sleeping issues inside RCU critical sections and while
holding a spinlock on sockmap/sockhash tear-down. There has to be at least
one socket in the map for the problem to surface.

This adds a test that triggers the warnings for broken locking rules. Not a
fix per se, but rather tooling to verify the accompanying fixes. Run on a
VM with 1 vCPU to reproduce the warnings.

Fixes: 7e81a3530206 ("bpf: Sockmap, ensure sock lock held during tear down")
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>

selftests/bpf no longer builds for me.
make
  BINARY   test_maps
  TEST-OBJ [test_progs] sockmap_basic.test.o
/data/users/ast/net/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c:
In function ‘connected_socket_v4’:
/data/users/ast/net/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c:20:11:
error: ‘TCP_REPAIR_ON’ undeclared (first use in this function); did
you mean ‘TCP_REPAIR’?
   20 |  repair = TCP_REPAIR_ON;
      |           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
      |           TCP_REPAIR
/data/users/ast/net/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c:20:11:
note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each
function it appears in
/data/users/ast/net/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c:29:11:
error: ‘TCP_REPAIR_OFF_NO_WP’ undeclared (first use in this function);
did you mean ‘TCP_REPAIR_OPTIONS’?
   29 |  repair = TCP_REPAIR_OFF_NO_WP;
      |           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      |           TCP_REPAIR_OPTIONS

Clearly /usr/include/linux/tcp.h is too old.
Suggestions?

Sorry for the inconvenience. I see that tcp.h header is missing under
linux/tools/include/uapi/.

How about we just add the couple defines needed to sockmap_basic.c I don't
see a need to pull in all of tcp.h just for a couple defines that wont
change anyways.

I have been building against my distro kernel headers, completely
unaware of this. This is an oversight on my side.

Can I ask for a revert? I'm traveling today with limited ability to
post patches.

I don't think we need a full revert.

I can resubmit the test with the missing header for bpf-next once it
reopens.

If you are traveling I'll post a patch with the defines.