Use the new type-safe wrappers around bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd().
Fix a prog/map mixup in prog_holds_map().
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230214231221.249277-6-iii@linux.ibm.com
This patch modifies the task_ls_recursion test to check that
the first bpf_task_storage_get(&map_a, ...) in BPF_PROG(on_update)
can still do the lockless lookup even it cannot acquire the percpu
busy lock. If the lookup succeeds, it will increment the value
by 1 and the value in the task storage map_a will become 200+1=201.
After that, BPF_PROG(on_update) tries to delete from map_a and
should get -EBUSY because it cannot acquire the percpu busy lock
after finding the data.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221025184524.3526117-10-martin.lau@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This patch adds a test to check for deadlock failure
in bpf_task_storage_{get,delete} when called by a sleepable bpf_lsm prog.
It also checks if the prog_info.recursion_misses is non zero.
The test starts with 32 threads and they are affinitized to one cpu.
In my qemu setup, with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, I can reproduce it within
one second if it is run without the previous patches of this set.
Here is the test error message before adding the no deadlock detection
version of the bpf_task_storage_{get,delete}:
test_nodeadlock:FAIL:bpf_task_storage_get busy unexpected bpf_task_storage_get busy: actual 2 != expected 0
test_nodeadlock:FAIL:bpf_task_storage_delete busy unexpected bpf_task_storage_delete busy: actual 2 != expected 0
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221025184524.3526117-9-martin.lau@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
BPF CI has revealed flakiness in the task_local_storage/exit_creds test.
The failure point in CI [1] is that null_ptr_count is equal to 0,
which indicates that the program hasn't run yet. This points to the
kern_sync_rcu (sys_membarrier -> synchronize_rcu underneath) not
waiting sufficiently.
Indeed, synchronize_rcu only waits for read-side sections that started
before the call. If the program execution starts *during* the
synchronize_rcu invocation (due to, say, preemption), the test won't
wait long enough.
As a speculative fix, make the synchornize_rcu calls in a loop until
an explicit run counter has gone up.
[1]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3268263235/jobs/5374940791
Signed-off-by: Delyan Kratunov <delyank@meta.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/156d4ef82275a074e8da8f4cffbd01b0c1466493.camel@meta.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add a test with recursive bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] from fentry
programs on bpf_local_storage_lookup and bpf_local_storage_update. Without
proper deadlock prevent mechanism, this test would cause deadlock.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210225234319.336131-5-songliubraving@fb.com
Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add two tests for
task local storage without CONFIG_BPF_LSM.
The first test stores a value in sys_enter and read it back in sys_exit.
The second test checks whether the kernel allows allocating task local
storage in exit_creds() (which it should not).
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210225234319.336131-4-songliubraving@fb.com