diff mbox series

[net] bpf, sockmap: fix the sk->sk_forward_alloc warning of sk_stream_kill_queues()

Message ID 1666941754-10216-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series [net] bpf, sockmap: fix the sk->sk_forward_alloc warning of sk_stream_kill_queues() | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag present in non-next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2
netdev/cc_maintainers fail 1 blamed authors not CCed: daniel@iogearbox.net; 7 maintainers not CCed: kuba@kernel.org dsahern@kernel.org davem@davemloft.net yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org daniel@iogearbox.net edumazet@google.com pabeni@redhat.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 5 this patch: 5
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 31 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 pending Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc

Commit Message

wangyufen Oct. 28, 2022, 7:22 a.m. UTC
When running `test_sockmap` selftests, got the following warning:

WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 197 at net/core/stream.c:205 sk_stream_kill_queues+0xd3/0xf0
Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x55/0x110
  tcp_rcv_state_process+0xd28/0x1380
  ? tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
  tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
  __release_sock+0x106/0x130
  __tcp_close+0x1a7/0x4e0
  tcp_close+0x20/0x70
  inet_release+0x3c/0x80
  __sock_release+0x3a/0xb0
  sock_close+0x14/0x20
  __fput+0xa3/0x260
  task_work_run+0x59/0xb0
  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1b3/0x1c0
  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
  do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

The root case is: In commit 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more
uncharged while msg has more_data") , I used msg->sg.size replace
tosend rudely, which break the
   if (msg->apply_bytes && msg->apply_bytes < send)
scene.

Fixes: 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more uncharged while msg has more_data")
Reported-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
---
 net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

John Fastabend Oct. 28, 2022, 10:17 p.m. UTC | #1
Wang Yufen wrote:
> When running `test_sockmap` selftests, got the following warning:
> 
> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 197 at net/core/stream.c:205 sk_stream_kill_queues+0xd3/0xf0
> Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x55/0x110
>   tcp_rcv_state_process+0xd28/0x1380
>   ? tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
>   tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
>   __release_sock+0x106/0x130
>   __tcp_close+0x1a7/0x4e0
>   tcp_close+0x20/0x70
>   inet_release+0x3c/0x80
>   __sock_release+0x3a/0xb0
>   sock_close+0x14/0x20
>   __fput+0xa3/0x260
>   task_work_run+0x59/0xb0
>   exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1b3/0x1c0
>   syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
>   do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> 
> The root case is: In commit 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more
> uncharged while msg has more_data") , I used msg->sg.size replace
> tosend rudely, which break the
>    if (msg->apply_bytes && msg->apply_bytes < send)
> scene.

Ah nice catch. Feel free to add my ACK on a v2 with small typo fixup.

Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>

> 
> Fixes: 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more uncharged while msg has more_data")
> Reported-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> index a1626af..38d4735 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>  {
>  	bool cork = false, enospc = sk_msg_full(msg);
>  	struct sock *sk_redir;
> -	u32 tosend, delta = 0;
> +	u32 tosend, orgsize, sended, delta = 0;
>  	u32 eval = __SK_NONE;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -333,10 +333,12 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>  			cork = true;
>  			psock->cork = NULL;
>  		}
> -		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, msg->sg.size);
> +		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend);
>  		release_sock(sk);
>  
> +		orgsize = msg->sg.size;
>  		ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, msg, tosend, flags);
> +		sended = orgsize - msg->sg.size;

Small english nitpick. Past tense of send is sent so could we make this,

                sent = orgsize - msg->sg.size;

>  
>  		if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
>  			sock_put(sk_redir);
> @@ -374,8 +376,8 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>  		if (msg &&
>  		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].page_link &&
>  		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].length) {
> -			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
> -				sk_mem_charge(sk, msg->sg.size);
> +			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT && tosend > sended)

Other nit, you could probably omit the 'tosend > sended' check here. Because
otherwise tosend == sended and the mem_charge of zer is a nop. But OTOH
its probably ok to keep the check to avoid some extra work.

> +				sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sended);
>  			goto more_data;
>  		}
>  	}
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
wangyufen Oct. 28, 2022, 11:26 p.m. UTC | #2
在 2022/10/29 6:17, John Fastabend 写道:
> Wang Yufen wrote:
>> When running `test_sockmap` selftests, got the following warning:
>>
>> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 197 at net/core/stream.c:205 sk_stream_kill_queues+0xd3/0xf0
>> Call Trace:
>>    <TASK>
>>    inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x55/0x110
>>    tcp_rcv_state_process+0xd28/0x1380
>>    ? tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
>>    tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x77/0x2c0
>>    __release_sock+0x106/0x130
>>    __tcp_close+0x1a7/0x4e0
>>    tcp_close+0x20/0x70
>>    inet_release+0x3c/0x80
>>    __sock_release+0x3a/0xb0
>>    sock_close+0x14/0x20
>>    __fput+0xa3/0x260
>>    task_work_run+0x59/0xb0
>>    exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1b3/0x1c0
>>    syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
>>    do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
>>    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>>
>> The root case is: In commit 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more
>> uncharged while msg has more_data") , I used msg->sg.size replace
>> tosend rudely, which break the
>>     if (msg->apply_bytes && msg->apply_bytes < send)
>> scene.
> Ah nice catch. Feel free to add my ACK on a v2 with small typo fixup.
>
> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>
>> Fixes: 84472b436e76 ("bpf, sockmap: Fix more uncharged while msg has more_data")
>> Reported-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 10 ++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
>> index a1626af..38d4735 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
>> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>>   {
>>   	bool cork = false, enospc = sk_msg_full(msg);
>>   	struct sock *sk_redir;
>> -	u32 tosend, delta = 0;
>> +	u32 tosend, orgsize, sended, delta = 0;
>>   	u32 eval = __SK_NONE;
>>   	int ret;
>>   
>> @@ -333,10 +333,12 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>>   			cork = true;
>>   			psock->cork = NULL;
>>   		}
>> -		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, msg->sg.size);
>> +		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend);
>>   		release_sock(sk);
>>   
>> +		orgsize = msg->sg.size;
>>   		ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, msg, tosend, flags);
>> +		sended = orgsize - msg->sg.size;
> Small english nitpick. Past tense of send is sent so could we make this,
>
>                  sent = orgsize - msg->sg.size;

I got it. Thanks.

>
>>   
>>   		if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
>>   			sock_put(sk_redir);
>> @@ -374,8 +376,8 @@ static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
>>   		if (msg &&
>>   		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].page_link &&
>>   		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].length) {
>> -			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
>> -				sk_mem_charge(sk, msg->sg.size);
>> +			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT && tosend > sended)
> Other nit, you could probably omit the 'tosend > sended' check here. Because
> otherwise tosend == sended and the mem_charge of zer is a nop. But OTOH
> its probably ok to keep the check to avoid some extra work.
>
>> +				sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sended);
>>   			goto more_data;
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3.1
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
index a1626af..38d4735 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@  static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
 {
 	bool cork = false, enospc = sk_msg_full(msg);
 	struct sock *sk_redir;
-	u32 tosend, delta = 0;
+	u32 tosend, orgsize, sended, delta = 0;
 	u32 eval = __SK_NONE;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -333,10 +333,12 @@  static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
 			cork = true;
 			psock->cork = NULL;
 		}
-		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, msg->sg.size);
+		sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend);
 		release_sock(sk);
 
+		orgsize = msg->sg.size;
 		ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, msg, tosend, flags);
+		sended = orgsize - msg->sg.size;
 
 		if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
 			sock_put(sk_redir);
@@ -374,8 +376,8 @@  static int tcp_bpf_send_verdict(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
 		if (msg &&
 		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].page_link &&
 		    msg->sg.data[msg->sg.start].length) {
-			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
-				sk_mem_charge(sk, msg->sg.size);
+			if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT && tosend > sended)
+				sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sended);
 			goto more_data;
 		}
 	}