Re: [RESEND PATCH bpf-next v6 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add tests for open-coded task and css iter

[Chuyi Zhou]

在 2023/10/20 08:03, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:18 PM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +
> > +SEC("?fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
> > +__failure __msg("css_task_iter is only allowed in bpf_lsm and bpf iter-s")
> > +int BPF_PROG(iter_css_task_for_each)
> > +{
> > +       u64 cg_id = bpf_get_current_cgroup_id();
> > +       struct cgroup *cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(cg_id);
> > +       struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> > +       struct task_struct *task;
> > +
> > +       if (cgrp == NULL)
> > +               return 0;
> > +       css = &cgrp->self;
> > +
> > +       bpf_for_each(css_task, task, css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS) {
> > +
> > +       }
> > +       bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
>
> I think we should relax allowlist in patch 2 further.
> Any sleepable is safe.
> Allowlist is needed to avoid dead locking on css_set_lock.
> Any lsm and any iter (even non-sleepable) and any sleepable
> seems to be safe.

Yes, I just try to read the corresponding code. IIUC, the key point here 
is we should not hold the css_set_lock before we invoking a BPF Prog 
which may use css_task iters.

1. For lsm hooks and task_iters, it would be clearly know from the code 
that we would not try to hold that lock.

2. For cgroup_iters, we will hold the cgroup_muetx before we enter the 
Prog and it's OK.(see __cgroup_procs_write())

3. For any sleepable progs, bpf_check_attach_target() would only allow 
them to attach some sepecifc hooks, currently, these hooks are OK.


Thanks for the suggestion again! I would do it.