Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] bpf: restore the ebpf program ID for BPF_AUDIT_UNLOAD and PERF_BPF_EVENT_PROG_UNLOAD

On 01/09, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 2:45 PM Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:44 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > When changing the ebpf program put() routines to support being called
> > > from within IRQ context the program ID was reset to zero prior to
> > > calling the perf event and audit UNLOAD record generators, which
> > > resulted in problems as the ebpf program ID was bogus (always zero).
> > > This patch addresses this problem by removing an unnecessary call to
> > > bpf_prog_free_id() in __bpf_prog_offload_destroy() and adjusting
> > > __bpf_prog_put() to only call bpf_prog_free_id() after audit and perf
> > > have finished their bpf program unload tasks in
> > > bpf_prog_put_deferred().  For the record, no one can determine, or
> > > remember, why it was necessary to free the program ID, and remove it
> > > from the IDR, prior to executing bpf_prog_put_deferred();
> > > regardless, both Stanislav and Alexei agree that the approach in this
> > > patch should be safe.
> > >
> > > It is worth noting that when moving the bpf_prog_free_id() call, the
> > > do_idr_lock parameter was forced to true as the ebpf devs determined
> > > this was the correct as the do_idr_lock should always be true.  The
> > > do_idr_lock parameter will be removed in a follow-up patch, but it
> > > was kept here to keep the patch small in an effort to ease any stable
> > > backports.
> > >
> > > I also modified the bpf_audit_prog() logic used to associate the
> > > AUDIT_BPF record with other associated records, e.g. @ctx != NULL.
> > > Instead of keying off the operation, it now keys off the execution
> > > context, e.g. '!in_irg && !irqs_disabled()', which is much more
> > > appropriate and should help better connect the UNLOAD operations with
> > > the associated audit state (other audit records).
> > >
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Fixes: d809e134be7a ("bpf: Prepare bpf_prog_put() to be called from  
> irq context.")
> > > Reported-by: Burn Alting <[email protected]>
> > > Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
> > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
> > > Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thank you! There might be a chance it breaks test_offload.py (I don't
> > remember whether it checks this prog-is-removed-from-id part or not),
> > but I don't think it's fair to ask to address it :-)
> > Since it doesn't trigger in CI, I'll take another look next week when
> > doing a respin of my 'xdp-hints' series.

> No problem, I'm glad we found a solution that works for everyone; and
> thank you for chasing down any test changes that may be necessary.

> I'd like to get this patch into Linus' tree sooner rather than later
> as it fixes a kinda ugly problem, would you be okay if this went in
> via the bpf tree?  With the appropriate ACKs I could send it to Linus
> via the audit tree, but I think it would be much better to send it via
> the bpf/netdev tree.

Don't see any reason that this should go via bpf-next, so assuming
going via bpf three should be fine.


> --
> paul-moore.com

--
Linux-audit mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit