[PATCH 5.10 064/238] bpf: Mark bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}() helpers with notrace correctly
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Mon Mar 25 2024 - 00:12:20 EST
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 178c54666f9c4d2f49f2ea661d0c11b52f0ed190 ]
Currently tracing is supposed not to allow for bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}()
helper calls. This is to prevent deadlock for the following cases:
- there is a prog (prog-A) calling bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}().
- there is a tracing program (prog-B), e.g., fentry, attached
to bpf_spin_lock() and/or bpf_spin_unlock().
- prog-B calls bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}().
For such a case, when prog-A calls bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}(),
a deadlock will happen.
The related source codes are below in kernel/bpf/helpers.c:
notrace BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_lock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
notrace BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_unlock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
notrace is supposed to prevent fentry prog from attaching to
bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}().
But actually this is not the case and fentry prog can successfully
attached to bpf_spin_lock(). Siddharth Chintamaneni reported
the issue in [1]. The following is the macro definition for
above BPF_CALL_1:
#define BPF_CALL_x(x, name, ...) \
static __always_inline \
u64 ____##name(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__)); \
typedef u64 (*btf_##name)(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__)); \
u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)); \
u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)) \
{ \
return ((btf_##name)____##name)(__BPF_MAP(x,__BPF_CAST,__BPF_N,__VA_ARGS__));\
} \
static __always_inline \
u64 ____##name(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__))
#define BPF_CALL_1(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(1, name, __VA_ARGS__)
The notrace attribute is actually applied to the static always_inline function
____bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}(). The actual callback function
bpf_spin_{lock,unlock}() is not marked with notrace, hence
allowing fentry prog to attach to two helpers, and this
may cause the above mentioned deadlock. Siddharth Chintamaneni
actually has a reproducer in [2].
To fix the issue, a new macro NOTRACE_BPF_CALL_1 is introduced which
will add notrace attribute to the original function instead of
the hidden always_inline function and this fixed the problem.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAE5sdEigPnoGrzN8WU7Tx-h-iFuMZgW06qp0KHWtpvoXxf1OAQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAE5sdEg6yUc_Jz50AnUXEEUh6O73yQ1Z6NV2srJnef0ZrQkZew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Fixes: d83525ca62cf ("bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240207070102.335167-1-yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/filter.h | 21 ++++++++++++---------
kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index cd56e53bd42e2..840b2a05c1b9f 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -480,24 +480,27 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
__BPF_MAP(n, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_N, u64, __ur_1, u64, __ur_2, \
u64, __ur_3, u64, __ur_4, u64, __ur_5)
-#define BPF_CALL_x(x, name, ...) \
+#define BPF_CALL_x(x, attr, name, ...) \
static __always_inline \
u64 ____##name(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__)); \
typedef u64 (*btf_##name)(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__)); \
- u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)); \
- u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)) \
+ attr u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)); \
+ attr u64 name(__BPF_REG(x, __BPF_DECL_REGS, __BPF_N, __VA_ARGS__)) \
{ \
return ((btf_##name)____##name)(__BPF_MAP(x,__BPF_CAST,__BPF_N,__VA_ARGS__));\
} \
static __always_inline \
u64 ____##name(__BPF_MAP(x, __BPF_DECL_ARGS, __BPF_V, __VA_ARGS__))
-#define BPF_CALL_0(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(0, name, __VA_ARGS__)
-#define BPF_CALL_1(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(1, name, __VA_ARGS__)
-#define BPF_CALL_2(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(2, name, __VA_ARGS__)
-#define BPF_CALL_3(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(3, name, __VA_ARGS__)
-#define BPF_CALL_4(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(4, name, __VA_ARGS__)
-#define BPF_CALL_5(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(5, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define __NOATTR
+#define BPF_CALL_0(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(0, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define BPF_CALL_1(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(1, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define BPF_CALL_2(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(2, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define BPF_CALL_3(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(3, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define BPF_CALL_4(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(4, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+#define BPF_CALL_5(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(5, __NOATTR, name, __VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define NOTRACE_BPF_CALL_1(name, ...) BPF_CALL_x(1, notrace, name, __VA_ARGS__)
#define bpf_ctx_range(TYPE, MEMBER) \
offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ... offsetofend(TYPE, MEMBER) - 1
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index d758641973d6d..084ac7e429199 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static inline void __bpf_spin_lock_irqsave(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
__this_cpu_write(irqsave_flags, flags);
}
-notrace BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_lock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
+NOTRACE_BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_lock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
{
__bpf_spin_lock_irqsave(lock);
return 0;
@@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ static inline void __bpf_spin_unlock_irqrestore(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
-notrace BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_unlock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
+NOTRACE_BPF_CALL_1(bpf_spin_unlock, struct bpf_spin_lock *, lock)
{
__bpf_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock);
return 0;
--
2.43.0