From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.9-rc1 commit a44b1334aadd82203f661adb9adb41e53ad0e8d1 category: feature bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IDC9YK Reference: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commi... -------------------------------- Currently, calling any helpers, kfuncs, or subprogs except the graph data structure (lists, rbtrees) API kfuncs while holding a bpf_spin_lock is not allowed. One of the original motivations of this decision was to force the BPF programmer's hand into keeping the bpf_spin_lock critical section small, and to ensure the execution time of the program does not increase due to lock waiting times. In addition to this, some of the helpers and kfuncs may be unsafe to call while holding a bpf_spin_lock. However, when it comes to subprog calls, atleast for static subprogs, the verifier is able to explore their instructions during verification. Therefore, it is similar in effect to having the same code inlined into the critical section. Hence, not allowing static subprog calls in the bpf_spin_lock critical section is mostly an annoyance that needs to be worked around, without providing any tangible benefit. Unlike static subprog calls, global subprog calls are not safe to permit within the critical section, as the verifier does not explore them during verification, therefore whether the same lock will be taken again, or unlocked, cannot be ascertained. Therefore, allow calling static subprogs within a bpf_spin_lock critical section, and only reject it in case the subprog linkage is global. Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240204222349.938118-2-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Conflicts: kernel/bpf/verifier.c [Only pick the part modified by this mainline commit, and ignore the conflict part caused by higher version.] Signed-off-by: Zicheng Qu <quzicheng@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 12 ++++++++---- .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spin_lock.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index f0a5c22a1eb5..3311c56d9c44 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9501,6 +9501,13 @@ static int check_func_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, if (subprog_is_global(env, subprog)) { const char *sub_name = subprog_name(env, subprog); + /* Only global subprogs cannot be called with a lock held. */ + if (env->cur_state->active_lock.ptr) { + verbose(env, "global function calls are not allowed while holding a lock,\n" + "use static function instead\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + if (err) { verbose(env, "Caller passes invalid args into func#%d ('%s')\n", subprog, sub_name); @@ -17470,7 +17477,6 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (env->cur_state->active_lock.ptr) { if ((insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_0 && insn->imm != BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock) || - (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) || (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL && (insn->off != 0 || !is_bpf_graph_api_kfunc(insn->imm)))) { verbose(env, "function calls are not allowed while holding a lock\n"); @@ -17512,9 +17518,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) verbose(env, "BPF_EXIT uses reserved fields\n"); return -EINVAL; } - - if (env->cur_state->active_lock.ptr && - !in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) { + if (env->cur_state->active_lock.ptr && !env->cur_state->curframe) { verbose(env, "bpf_spin_unlock is missing\n"); return -EINVAL; } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spin_lock.c index 9c1aa69650f8..fb316c080c84 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spin_lock.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spin_lock.c @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ l1_%=: r7 = r0; \ SEC("cgroup/skb") __description("spin_lock: test10 lock in subprog without unlock") -__failure __msg("unlock is missing") +__success __failure_unpriv __msg_unpriv("") __naked void lock_in_subprog_without_unlock(void) { -- 2.34.1