Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BUG] bpf: syscall: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in map_update_elem() | From | Jia-Ju Bai <> | Date | Sat, 11 Aug 2018 09:57:20 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/8/10 22:22, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 08/10/2018 04:07 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: >> The kernel may sleep with holding a rcu read lock. >> >> The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16 are: >> >> [FUNC] kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) >> kernel/kthread.c, 283: kmalloc in __kthread_create_on_node >> kernel/kthread.c, 365: __kthread_create_on_node in kthread_create_on_node >> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c, 368: kthread_create_on_node in __cpu_map_entry_alloc >> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c, 490: __cpu_map_entry_alloc in cpu_map_update_elem >> kernel/bpf/syscall.c, 724: [FUNC_PTR]cpu_map_update_elem in map_update_elem >> kernel/bpf/syscall.c, 723: rcu_read_lock in map_update_elem >> >> Note that [FUNC_PTR] means a function pointer call is used. >> >> I do not find a good way to fix it, so I only report. >> This is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC). > Thanks for the report Jia-Ju! In the map_update_elem() from syscall > path there's a check map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP, where we > call the cpumap's map->ops->map_update_elem() while /not/ being under > rcu_read_lock() as in other cases, so looks okay to me. Could you point > out the case for being under rcu_read_lock() more specifically which > the tool found?
Thanks for your reply :) My tool cannot accurately track the case of map->map_type at present...
According to my code review, there is a indeed check on line 697 in Linux-4.16: else if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP) { err = map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, attr->flags); goto out; } But there is a call to map->ops->map_update_elem() that is under rcu_read_lock on line 724: rcu_read_lock(); err = map->ops->map_update_elem(map, key, value, attr->flags); rcu_read_unlock();
So I think if map->map_type is not equal to BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP, map->ops->map_update_elem() can still be called under rcu_read_lock, is it right?
Best wishes, Jia-Ju Bai
| |