| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Add a selftest to ensure BPF for loops within critical sections are
accepted by the verifier.
Signed-off-by: Emil Tsalapatis (Meta) <emil@etsalapatis.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250104202528.882482-3-emil@etsalapatis.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
The verifier log when leaking resources on BPF_EXIT may be a bit
confusing, as it's a problem only when finally existing from the main
prog, not from any of the subprogs. Hence, update the verifier error
string and the corresponding selftests matching on it.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204030400.208005-6-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
There are similar checks for covering locks, references, RCU read
sections and preempt_disable sections in 3 places in the verifer, i.e.
for tail calls, bpf_ld_[abs, ind], and exit path (for BPF_EXIT and
bpf_throw). Unify all of these into a common check_resource_leak
function to avoid code duplication.
Also update the error strings in selftests to the new ones in the same
change to ensure clean bisection.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241103225940.1408302-3-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
Test verifier/spin_lock automatically converted to use inline assembly.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230421174234.2391278-21-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
