| Message ID | 20220706155848.4939-3-laoar.shao@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf: Minor fixes for non-preallocated memory | expand |
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are > trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if > we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. > Let's also warn on both of them. > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: BPF_TRACE_ITER should probably be excluded.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are > > trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if > > we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. > > Let's also warn on both of them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: > > BPF_TRACE_ITER should probably be excluded. Right, I have verified that BPF_TRACE_ITER can be excluded. Will change it.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are > > > trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if > > > we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. > > > Let's also warn on both of them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: > > > > BPF_TRACE_ITER should probably be excluded. > > Right, I have verified that BPF_TRACE_ITER can be excluded. > Will change it. Probably more than that. See that your change broke BPF CI and selftests are failing. Which means it breaks existing bpf programs.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:45 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov > > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:59 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are > > > > trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if > > > > we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. > > > > Let's also warn on both of them. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > > > > @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) > > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: > > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: > > > > case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: > > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: > > > > + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: > > > > > > BPF_TRACE_ITER should probably be excluded. > > > > Right, I have verified that BPF_TRACE_ITER can be excluded. > > Will change it. > > Probably more than that. See that your change broke BPF CI > and selftests are failing. > Which means it breaks existing bpf programs. Ah, yes, "#194 timer:FAIL" which is caused by this change. I will be more careful here.
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index df3ec6b05f05..f9c0f4889a3a 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -12570,6 +12570,8 @@ static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type) case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT: + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE: + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING: return true; default: return false;
BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE and BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING are trace type as well, which may also cause unexpected memory allocation if we set BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC. Let's also warn on both of them. Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)