Skip to content

introduce xdp frags support to veth driver #124

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
Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

introduce xdp frags support to veth driver #124

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

kernel-patches-bot
Copy link

Pull request for series with
subject: introduce xdp frags support to veth driver
version: 4
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: d23a872
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/613292=>bpf-next branch from 9637b68 to 489fc2e Compare March 8, 2022 17:30
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 7fd9fd4
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/613292=>bpf-next branch from 489fc2e to 2d12a0d Compare March 8, 2022 22:44
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 3399dd9
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/613292=>bpf-next branch from 2d12a0d to 26a9e1b Compare March 9, 2022 01:44
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: de55c9a
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot force-pushed the series/613292=>bpf-next branch from 26a9e1b to b17e03a Compare March 9, 2022 22:38
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: eecbfd9
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 743bec1
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 5861701
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 1b773d0
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571
version: 4

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=621571 expired. Closing PR.

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 6789ab9
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: c09df4b
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: d3b351f
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 2486ab4
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 8fa42d7
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: f98d6dd
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: cbdaf71
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: 6585abe
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: aaccdf9
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

Master branch: ad13baf
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552
version: 5

@LorenzoBianconi
net: veth: account total xdp_frame len running ndo_xdp_xmit
20dbeb9 
Even if this is a theoretical issue since it is not possible to perform
XDP_REDIRECT on a non-linear xdp_frame, veth driver does not account
paged area in ndo_xdp_xmit function pointer.
Introduce xdp_get_frame_len utility routine to get the xdp_frame full
length and account total frame size running XDP_REDIRECT of a
non-linear xdp frame into a veth device.

Acked-by: Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
@LorenzoBianconi
veth: rework veth_xdp_rcv_skb in order to accept non-linear skb
ebf6246 
Introduce veth_convert_skb_to_xdp_buff routine in order to
convert a non-linear skb into a xdp buffer. If the received skb
is cloned or shared, veth_convert_skb_to_xdp_buff will copy it
in a new skb composed by order-0 pages for the linear and the
fragmented area. Moreover veth_convert_skb_to_xdp_buff guarantees
we have enough headroom for xdp.
This is a preliminary patch to allow attaching xdp programs with frags
support on veth devices.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
@LorenzoBianconi
veth: allow jumbo frames in xdp mode
9d55102 
Allow increasing the MTU over page boundaries on veth devices
if the attached xdp program declares to support xdp fragments.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
@kernel-patches-bot
Copy link
Author

At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=622552 irrelevant now. Closing PR.

@kernel-patches-bot kernel-patches-bot deleted the series/613292=>bpf-next branch March 17, 2022 19:47
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2023
@adam900710 @kdave
btrfs: fix u32 overflows when left shifting stripe_nr
a7299a1 
[BUG]
David reported an ASSERT() get triggered during fio load on 8 devices
with data/raid6 and metadata/raid1c3:

  fio --rw=randrw --randrepeat=1 --size=3000m \
	  --bsrange=512b-64k --bs_unaligned \
	  --ioengine=libaio --fsync=1024 \
	  --name=job0 --name=job1 \

The ASSERT() is from rbio_add_bio() of raid56.c:

	ASSERT(orig_logical >= full_stripe_start &&
	       orig_logical + orig_len <= full_stripe_start +
	       rbio->nr_data * BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN);

Which is checking if the target rbio is crossing the full stripe
boundary.

  [100.789] assertion failed: orig_logical >= full_stripe_start && orig_logical + orig_len <= full_stripe_start + rbio->nr_data * BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN, in fs/btrfs/raid56.c:1622
  [100.795] ------------[ cut here ]------------
  [100.796] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/raid56.c:1622!
  [100.797] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
  [100.798] CPU: 1 PID: 100 Comm: kworker/u8:4 Not tainted 6.4.0-rc6-default+ #124
  [100.799] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014
  [100.802] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-btrfs-1)
  [100.803] RIP: 0010:rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.806] RSP: 0018:ffff888104a8f300 EFLAGS: 00010246
  [100.808] RAX: 00000000000000a1 RBX: ffff8881075907e0 RCX: ffffed1020951e01
  [100.809] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: 0000000000000001
  [100.811] RBP: 0000000141d20000 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffff888104a8f04f
  [100.813] R10: ffffed1020951e09 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ffff88810e87f400
  [100.815] R13: 0000000041d20000 R14: 0000000144529000 R15: ffff888101524000
  [100.817] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88811ac00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
  [100.821] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
  [100.822] CR2: 000055d54e44c270 CR3: 000000010a9a1006 CR4: 00000000003706a0
  [100.824] Call Trace:
  [100.825]  <TASK>
  [100.825]  ? die+0x32/0x80
  [100.826]  ? do_trap+0x12d/0x160
  [100.827]  ? rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.827]  ? rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.829]  ? do_error_trap+0x90/0x130
  [100.830]  ? rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.831]  ? handle_invalid_op+0x2c/0x30
  [100.833]  ? rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.835]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x29/0x40
  [100.836]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
  [100.837]  ? rbio_add_bio+0x204/0x210 [btrfs]
  [100.837]  raid56_parity_write+0x64/0x270 [btrfs]
  [100.838]  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x26e/0x800 [btrfs]
  [100.840]  ? btrfs_bio_init+0x80/0x80 [btrfs]
  [100.841]  ? release_pages+0x503/0x6d0
  [100.842]  ? folio_unlock+0x2f/0x60
  [100.844]  ? __folio_put+0x60/0x60
  [100.845]  ? btrfs_do_readpage+0xae0/0xae0 [btrfs]
  [100.847]  btrfs_submit_bio+0x21/0x60 [btrfs]
  [100.847]  submit_one_bio+0x6a/0xb0 [btrfs]
  [100.849]  extent_write_cache_pages+0x395/0x680 [btrfs]
  [100.850]  ? __extent_writepage+0x520/0x520 [btrfs]
  [100.851]  ? mark_usage+0x190/0x190
  [100.852]  extent_writepages+0xdb/0x130 [btrfs]
  [100.853]  ? extent_write_locked_range+0x480/0x480 [btrfs]
  [100.854]  ? mark_usage+0x190/0x190
  [100.854]  ? attach_extent_buffer_page+0x220/0x220 [btrfs]
  [100.855]  ? reacquire_held_locks+0x178/0x280
  [100.856]  ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x245/0x7f0
  [100.857]  do_writepages+0x102/0x2e0
  [100.858]  ? page_writeback_cpu_online+0x10/0x10
  [100.859]  ? __lock_release.isra.0+0x14a/0x4d0
  [100.860]  ? reacquire_held_locks+0x280/0x280
  [100.861]  ? __lock_acquired+0x1e9/0x3d0
  [100.862]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x1b0/0x1b0
  [100.863]  __writeback_single_inode+0x94/0x450
  [100.864]  writeback_sb_inodes+0x372/0x7f0
  [100.864]  ? lock_sync+0xd0/0xd0
  [100.865]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x93/0xf0
  [100.866]  ? sync_inode_metadata+0xc0/0xc0
  [100.867]  ? rwsem_optimistic_spin+0x340/0x340
  [100.868]  __writeback_inodes_wb+0x70/0x130
  [100.869]  wb_writeback+0x2d1/0x530
  [100.869]  ? __writeback_inodes_wb+0x130/0x130
  [100.870]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare.part.0+0xf1/0x1c0
  [100.870]  wb_do_writeback+0x3eb/0x480
  [100.871]  ? wb_writeback+0x530/0x530
  [100.871]  ? mark_lock_irq+0xcd0/0xcd0
  [100.872]  wb_workfn+0xe0/0x3f0<

[CAUSE]
Commit a97699d ("btrfs: replace map_lookup->stripe_len by
BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN") changes how we calculate the map length, to reduce
u64 division.

Function btrfs_max_io_len() is to get the length to the stripe boundary.

It calculates the full stripe start offset (inside the chunk) by the
following code:

		*full_stripe_start =
			rounddown(*stripe_nr, nr_data_stripes(map)) <<
			BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN_SHIFT;

The calculation itself is fine, but the value returned by rounddown() is
dependent on both @stripe_nr (which is u32) and nr_data_stripes() (which
returned int).

Thus the result is also u32, then we do the left shift, which can
overflow u32.

If such overflow happens, @full_stripe_start will be a value way smaller
than @offset, causing later "full_stripe_len - (offset -
*full_stripe_start)" to underflow, thus make later length calculation to
have no stripe boundary limit, resulting a write bio to exceed stripe
boundary.

There are some other locations like this, with a u32 @stripe_nr got left
shift, which can lead to a similar overflow.

[FIX]
Fix all @stripe_nr with left shift with a type cast to u64 before the
left shift.

Those involved @stripe_nr or similar variables are recording the stripe
number inside the chunk, which is small enough to be contained by u32,
but their offset inside the chunk can not fit into u32.

Thus for those specific left shifts, a type cast to u64 is necessary so
this patch does not touch them and the code will be cleaned up in the
future to keep the fix minimal.

Reported-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Fixes: a97699d ("btrfs: replace map_lookup->stripe_len by BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN")
Tested-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 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
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
accepted bpf-next V5
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@kernel-patches-bot @LorenzoBianconi