IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Currently, for hashmap, the bpf iterator will grab a bucket lock, a
spinlock, before traversing the elements in the bucket. This can ensure
all bpf visted elements are valid. But this mechanism may cause
deadlock if update/deletion happens to the same bucket of the
visited map in the program. For example, if we added bpf_map_update_elem()
call to the same visited element in selftests bpf_iter_bpf_hash_map.c,
we will have the following deadlock:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.9.0-rc1+ #841 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
test_progs/1750 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9a5bb73c5e70 (&htab->buckets[i].raw_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: htab_map_update_elem+0x1cf/0x410
but task is already holding lock:
ffff9a5bb73c5e20 (&htab->buckets[i].raw_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: bpf_hash_map_seq_find_next+0x94/0x120
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&htab->buckets[i].raw_lock);
lock(&htab->buckets[i].raw_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
...
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x78/0xa0
__lock_acquire.cold.74+0x209/0x2e3
lock_acquire+0xba/0x380
? htab_map_update_elem+0x1cf/0x410
? __lock_acquire+0x639/0x20c0
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3b/0x80
? htab_map_update_elem+0x1cf/0x410
htab_map_update_elem+0x1cf/0x410
? lock_acquire+0xba/0x380
bpf_prog_ad6dab10433b135d_dump_bpf_hash_map+0x88/0xa9c
? find_held_lock+0x34/0xa0
bpf_iter_run_prog+0x81/0x16e
__bpf_hash_map_seq_show+0x145/0x180
bpf_seq_read+0xff/0x3d0
vfs_read+0xad/0x1c0
ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
...
The bucket_lock first grabbed in seq_ops->next() called by bpf_seq_read(),
and then grabbed again in htab_map_update_elem() in the bpf program, causing
deadlocks.
Actually, we do not need bucket_lock here, we can just use rcu_read_lock()
similar to netlink iterator where the rcu_read_{lock,unlock} likes below:
seq_ops->start():
rcu_read_lock();
seq_ops->next():
rcu_read_unlock();
/* next element */
rcu_read_lock();
seq_ops->stop();
rcu_read_unlock();
Compared to old bucket_lock mechanism, if concurrent updata/delete happens,
we may visit stale elements, miss some elements, or repeat some elements.
I think this is a reasonable compromise. For users wanting to avoid
stale, missing/repeated accesses, bpf_map batch access syscall interface
can be used.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200902235340.2001375-1-yhs@fb.com
dc0988bbe1