On 02/14/2018 01:47 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2018年02月14日 20:29, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:17:18 +0100
>> Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2018 01:02 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018年02月14日 19:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Wed 14-02-18 19:47:30, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018年02月14日 17:28, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>>>> [ +Jason, +Jesper ]
>>>>>>> On 02/14/2018 09:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue 13-02-18 18:55:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:59:01PM -0800, syzbot wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>     kvmalloc include/linux/mm.h:541 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>>     kvmalloc_array include/linux/mm.h:557 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>>     __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc include/linux/ptr_ring.h:474 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>>     ptr_ring_init include/linux/ptr_ring.h:492 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>>     __cpu_map_entry_alloc kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:359 [inline]
>>>>>>>>>>     cpu_map_update_elem+0x3c3/0x8e0 kernel/bpf/cpumap.c:490
>>>>>>>>>>     map_update_elem kernel/bpf/syscall.c:698 [inline]
>>>>>>>>> Blame the BPF people, not the MM people ;-)
>>>>>>> Heh, not really. ;-)
>>>>>>>> Yes. kvmalloc (the vmalloc part) doesn't support GFP_ATOMIC semantic.
>>>>>>> Agree, that doesn't work.
>>>>>>> Bug was added in commit 0bf7800f1799 ("ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when 
>>>>>>> kmalloc() fails").
>>>>>>> Jason, please take a look at fixing this, thanks!
>>>>>> It looks to me the only solution is to revert that commit.
>>>>> Do you really need this to be GFP_ATOMIC? I can see some callers are
>>>>> under RCU read lock but can we perhaps do the allocation outside of this
>>>>> section?
>>>> If I understand the code correctly, the code would be called by XDP 
>>>> program (usually run inside a bh) which makes it hard to do this.
>>>> Rethink of this, we can probably test gfp and not call kvmalloc if 
>>>> GFP_ATOMIC is set in __ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc().
>>> That would be one option indeed (probably useful in any case to make the API
>>> more robust). Another one is to just not use GFP_ATOMIC in cpumap. Looking 
>>> at
>>> it, update can neither be called out of a BPF prog since prevented by 
>>> verifier
>>> nor under RCU reader side when updating this type of map from syscall path.
>>> Jesper, any concrete reason we still need GFP_ATOMIC here?
>> Allocations in cpumap (related to ptr_ring) should only be possible to
>> be initiated through userspace via bpf-syscall.
> I see verifier guarantees this.
>>   Thus, there isn't any
>> reason for GFP_ATOMIC here.
> Want me to send a patch to remove GFP_ATOMIC here?

Sounds good, thanks Jason!

Reply via email to