On 3/31/26 02:20, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 3/30/26 4:03 PM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> On 3/26/26 07:26, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> On 3/15/26 4:58 PM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>>>> Beside, from looking at the may_update_sockmap(), I don't know if it is
>>>>> even doable (or useful) to bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk) in
>>>>> tc/flow_dissector/xdp. One possible path is the SOCK_FILTER when looking
>>>>> at unix_dgram_sendmsg() => sk_filter(). It was not the original use case
>>>>> when the bpf_map_update_elem(sockmap) support was added iirc.
>>>>
>>>> What about a situation when unix_sk is stored in a sockmap, then tc prog
>>>> looks it up and invokes bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk)? I'm not sure it's
>>>> useful, but seems doable.
>>>
>>> [ Sorry for the late reply ]
>>>
>>> It is a bummer that the bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk) path is possible
>>> from tc :(
>>>
>>> Then unix_state_lock() in its current form cannot be safely acquired in
>>> sock_map_update_elem(). It is currently a spin_lock() instead of
>>> spin_lock_bh().
>>
>> Is there a specific deadlock you have in your mind?
>
> e.g. unix_stream_connect() is taking unix_state_lock(). Can a tc's
> ingress bpf prog call unix_state_lock()?
Ah, right, that's the problem, thanks for explaining.
But, as I've asked in the parallel thread, do we really need to take the
unix_state_lock() in sock_map_update_elem()? Taking it in
sock_map_update_elem_sys() fixes the null-ptr-deref and does not lead to a
deadlock. Taking unix_state_lock() in sock_map_update_elem() seems
unnecessary. Well, at least under the assumption progs can only access
unix_sk via the sockmap lookup.
>> ...
>> And sock_{map,hash}_seq_show() (being a part of bpf iter machinery) needs
>> to take lock_sock() just as well? Would that require a special-casing
>> (unix_state_lock()) for af_unix?
>
> I would think so for lock_sock() considering the current bh_lock_sock
> without !sock_owned_by_user() usage is incorrect in
> sock_map_update_elem(). [ this probably should be a separate issue for
> another patch ]
All right, leaving that for later.
> Some more side-tracking... from looking at the code, the bpf_iter of
> sock_{map,hash} can do bpf_map_lookup_elem(&sock_map, ...). This
> bpr_iter program probably will be failed to load because the
> bpf_sk_release() is not available.
I think ability to bpf_map_lookup_elem(sockmap) was added way before bpf
iter in
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
and iter "allows" it somewhat accidentally. Would you rather have it
explicitly dropped?
> I still don't have good idea what to do with the tc's prog calling
> sock_map_update_elem().
