Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

rust example register called twice. why? #127

Closed
omac777 opened this issue Mar 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

rust example register called twice. why? #127

omac777 opened this issue Mar 19, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@omac777
Copy link

omac777 commented Mar 19, 2021

It's not issue, but a question.
https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust/drivers/char/rust_example.rs#L140

        let mut chrdev_reg =
            chrdev::Registration::new_pinned(cstr!("rust_chrdev"), 0, &THIS_MODULE)?;
        chrdev_reg.as_mut().register::<RustFile>()?;
        chrdev_reg.as_mut().register::<RustFile>()?;

Why is register called twice?

Thank you
@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Mar 19, 2021

Because the goal is to demo what it looks like to register multiple chardevs on the same major number. We're being lazy and just using the same file type.

Would a comment explaining this help?

@alex alex closed this as completed in d5e7f1a Mar 20, 2021
alex added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2021
@alex
Merge pull request #128 from Rust-for-Linux/alex-patch-1
891b952 
fixes #127 -- added a comment to clarify an example
@omac777
Copy link
Author

omac777 commented Mar 23, 2021 via email

ojeda pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 29, 2021
@borkmann
bpf: Fix tail_call_reachable rejection for interpreter when jit failed
5dd0a6b 
During testing of f263a81 ("bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly
and fix use-after-free") under various failure conditions, for example, when
jit_subprogs() fails and tries to clean up the program to be run under the
interpreter, we ran into the following freeze:

  [...]
  #127/8 tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:FAIL
  [...]
  [   92.041251] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run+0x1b9d/0x2e20
  [   92.042408] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800da67f68 by task test_progs/682
  [   92.043707]
  [   92.044030] CPU: 1 PID: 682 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G   O   5.13.0-53301-ge6c08cb33a30-dirty #87
  [   92.045542] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
  [   92.046785] Call Trace:
  [   92.047171]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.047773]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
  [   92.048389]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.049019]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [...] // few hundred [similar] lines more
  [   92.659025]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.659845]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.660738]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
  [   92.661528]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.662378]  ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50
  [   92.663221]  ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50
  [   92.664077]  ? bpf_ksym_find+0x9c/0xe0
  [   92.664887]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.665624]  ? kernel_text_address+0xf5/0x100
  [   92.666529]  ? __kernel_text_address+0xe/0x30
  [   92.667725]  ? unwind_get_return_address+0x2f/0x50
  [   92.668854]  ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20
  [   92.670185]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.671130]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.672020]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
  [   92.672860]  ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
  [   92.675159]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.677074]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd5/0x130
  [   92.678662]  ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20
  [   92.680046]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.681285]  ? __bpf_prog_run32+0x6b/0x90
  [   92.682601]  ? __bpf_prog_run64+0x90/0x90
  [   92.683636]  ? lock_downgrade+0x370/0x370
  [   92.684647]  ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90
  [   92.685652]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.686752]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100
  [   92.688004]  ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
  [   92.688573]  ? __cant_migrate+0x2b/0x80
  [   92.689192]  ? bpf_test_run+0x2f4/0x510
  [   92.689869]  ? bpf_test_timer_continue+0x1c0/0x1c0
  [   92.690856]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
  [   92.691506]  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x61/0x80
  [   92.692128]  ? eth_type_trans+0x128/0x240
  [   92.692737]  ? __build_skb+0x46/0x50
  [   92.693252]  ? bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x65e/0xc50
  [   92.693954]  ? bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2d0/0x2d0
  [   92.694639]  ? __fget_light+0xa1/0x100
  [   92.695162]  ? bpf_prog_inc+0x23/0x30
  [   92.695685]  ? __sys_bpf+0xb40/0x2c80
  [   92.696324]  ? bpf_link_get_from_fd+0x90/0x90
  [   92.697150]  ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90
  [   92.698007]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x124/0x220
  [   92.699045]  ? finish_task_switch+0xe6/0x370
  [   92.700072]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100
  [   92.701233]  ? finish_task_switch+0x11d/0x370
  [   92.702264]  ? __switch_to+0x2c0/0x740
  [   92.703148]  ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90
  [   92.704155]  ? __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x50
  [   92.705146]  ? do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80
  [   92.706953]  ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
  [...]

Turns out that the program rejection from e411901 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls
in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT") is buggy since env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable
is never true. Commit ebf7d1f ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall
handling in JIT") added a tracker into check_max_stack_depth() which propagates
the tail_call_reachable condition throughout the subprograms. This info is then
assigned to the subprogram's func[i]->aux->tail_call_reachable. However, in the
case of the rejection check upon JIT failure, env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable
is used. func[0]->aux->tail_call_reachable which represents the main program's
information did not propagate this to the outer env->prog->aux, though. Add this
propagation into check_max_stack_depth() where it needs to belong so that the
check can be done reliably.

Fixes: ebf7d1f ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT")
Fixes: e411901 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT")
Co-developed-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/618c34e3163ad1a36b1e82377576a6081e182f25.1626123173.git.daniel@iogearbox.net
AltF02 pushed a commit to AltF02/linux that referenced this issue Oct 5, 2021
@rleon
init: don't panic if mount_nodev_root failed
40c8ee6 
Attempt to mount 9p file system as root gives the following kernel panic:

 9pnet_virtio: no channels available for device root
 Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root "root" (9p), err=-2
 CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc1+ Rust-for-Linux#127
 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.13.0-0-gf21b5a4aeb02-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
 Call Trace:
  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
  panic+0x1e2/0x44b
  ? __warn_printk+0xf3/0xf3
  ? free_unref_page+0x2d4/0x4a0
  ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x32/0x120
  ? free_unref_page+0x2d4/0x4a0
  mount_root+0x189/0x1e0
  prepare_namespace+0x136/0x165
  kernel_init_freeable+0x3b8/0x3cb
  ? rest_init+0x2e0/0x2e0
  kernel_init+0x19/0x130
  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
 Kernel Offset: disabled
 ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root "root" (9p), err=-2 ]---

QEMU command line:
 "qemu-system-x86_64 -append root=/dev/root rw rootfstype=9p rootflags=trans=virtio ..."

This error is because root_device_name is truncated in prepare_namespace() from
being "/dev/root" to be "root" prior to call to mount_nodev_root().

As a solution, don't treat errors in mount_nodev_root() as errors that
require panics and allow failback to the mount flow that existed before
patch citied in Fixes tag.

Fixes: f9259be ("init: allow mounting arbitrary non-blockdevice filesystems as root")
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <[email protected]>
ojeda pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2024
@chenhengqi @chenhuacai
LoongArch: BPF: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs
21c5ae5 
Like commit 1cf3bfc ("bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs")
for s390x, add support for 64-bit pointers to kfuncs for LoongArch.
Since the infrastructure is already implemented in BPF core, the only
thing need to be done is to override bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call().

Before this change, several test_verifier tests failed:

  # ./test_verifier | grep # | grep FAIL
  #119/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with non-scalar FAIL
  #120/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with nesting depth > 4 FAIL
  #121/p calls: invalid kfunc call: ptr_to_mem to struct with FAM FAIL
  #122/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->type != PTR_TO_CTX FAIL
  #123/p calls: invalid kfunc call: void * not allowed in func proto without mem size arg FAIL
  #124/p calls: trigger reg2btf_ids[reg->type] for reg->type > __BPF_REG_TYPE_MAX FAIL
  #125/p calls: invalid kfunc call: reg->off must be zero when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #126/p calls: invalid kfunc call: don't match first member type when passed to release kfunc FAIL
  #127/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with negative offset FAIL
  #128/p calls: invalid kfunc call: PTR_TO_BTF_ID with variable offset FAIL
  #129/p calls: invalid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #130/p calls: valid kfunc call: referenced arg needs refcounted PTR_TO_BTF_ID FAIL
  #486/p map_kptr: ref: reference state created and released on xchg FAIL

This is because the kfuncs in the loaded module are far away from
__bpf_call_base:

  ffff800002009440 t bpf_kfunc_call_test_fail1    [bpf_testmod]
  9000000002e128d8 T __bpf_call_base

The offset relative to __bpf_call_base does NOT fit in s32, which breaks
the assumption in BPF core. Enable bpf_jit_supports_far_kfunc_call() lifts
this limit.

Note that to reproduce the above result, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
should be applied, and run the test with JIT enabled, unpriv BPF enabled.

With this change, the test_verifier tests now all passed:

  # ./test_verifier
  ...
  Summary: 777 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Tested-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@alex @omac777