summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDaniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000
committerDaniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000
commitace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6 (patch)
treeb2d64bc10158fdd5497876388cd68142ca374ed3 /Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst
parentInitial commit. (diff)
downloadlinux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.tar.xz
linux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.zip
Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst267
1 files changed, 267 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst b/Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..06288cc719
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/graph_ds_impl.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+=========================
+BPF Graph Data Structures
+=========================
+
+This document describes implementation details of new-style "graph" data
+structures (linked_list, rbtree), with particular focus on the verifier's
+implementation of semantics specific to those data structures.
+
+Although no specific verifier code is referred to in this document, the document
+assumes that the reader has general knowledge of BPF verifier internals, BPF
+maps, and BPF program writing.
+
+Note that the intent of this document is to describe the current state of
+these graph data structures. **No guarantees** of stability for either
+semantics or APIs are made or implied here.
+
+.. contents::
+ :local:
+ :depth: 2
+
+Introduction
+------------
+
+The BPF map API has historically been the main way to expose data structures
+of various types for use within BPF programs. Some data structures fit naturally
+with the map API (HASH, ARRAY), others less so. Consequently, programs
+interacting with the latter group of data structures can be hard to parse
+for kernel programmers without previous BPF experience.
+
+Luckily, some restrictions which necessitated the use of BPF map semantics are
+no longer relevant. With the introduction of kfuncs, kptrs, and the any-context
+BPF allocator, it is now possible to implement BPF data structures whose API
+and semantics more closely match those exposed to the rest of the kernel.
+
+Two such data structures - linked_list and rbtree - have many verification
+details in common. Because both have "root"s ("head" for linked_list) and
+"node"s, the verifier code and this document refer to common functionality
+as "graph_api", "graph_root", "graph_node", etc.
+
+Unless otherwise stated, examples and semantics below apply to both graph data
+structures.
+
+Unstable API
+------------
+
+Data structures implemented using the BPF map API have historically used BPF
+helper functions - either standard map API helpers like ``bpf_map_update_elem``
+or map-specific helpers. The new-style graph data structures instead use kfuncs
+to define their manipulation helpers. Because there are no stability guarantees
+for kfuncs, the API and semantics for these data structures can be evolved in
+a way that breaks backwards compatibility if necessary.
+
+Root and node types for the new data structures are opaquely defined in the
+``uapi/linux/bpf.h`` header.
+
+Locking
+-------
+
+The new-style data structures are intrusive and are defined similarly to their
+vanilla kernel counterparts:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct node_data {
+ long key;
+ long data;
+ struct bpf_rb_node node;
+ };
+
+ struct bpf_spin_lock glock;
+ struct bpf_rb_root groot __contains(node_data, node);
+
+The "root" type for both linked_list and rbtree expects to be in a map_value
+which also contains a ``bpf_spin_lock`` - in the above example both global
+variables are placed in a single-value arraymap. The verifier considers this
+spin_lock to be associated with the ``bpf_rb_root`` by virtue of both being in
+the same map_value and will enforce that the correct lock is held when
+verifying BPF programs that manipulate the tree. Since this lock checking
+happens at verification time, there is no runtime penalty.
+
+Non-owning references
+---------------------
+
+**Motivation**
+
+Consider the following BPF code:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct node_data *n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n)); /* ACQUIRED */
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+
+ bpf_rbtree_add(&tree, n); /* PASSED */
+
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+From the verifier's perspective, the pointer ``n`` returned from ``bpf_obj_new``
+has type ``PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC``, with a ``btf_id`` of
+``struct node_data`` and a nonzero ``ref_obj_id``. Because it holds ``n``, the
+program has ownership of the pointee's (object pointed to by ``n``) lifetime.
+The BPF program must pass off ownership before exiting - either via
+``bpf_obj_drop``, which ``free``'s the object, or by adding it to ``tree`` with
+``bpf_rbtree_add``.
+
+(``ACQUIRED`` and ``PASSED`` comments in the example denote statements where
+"ownership is acquired" and "ownership is passed", respectively)
+
+What should the verifier do with ``n`` after ownership is passed off? If the
+object was ``free``'d with ``bpf_obj_drop`` the answer is obvious: the verifier
+should reject programs which attempt to access ``n`` after ``bpf_obj_drop`` as
+the object is no longer valid. The underlying memory may have been reused for
+some other allocation, unmapped, etc.
+
+When ownership is passed to ``tree`` via ``bpf_rbtree_add`` the answer is less
+obvious. The verifier could enforce the same semantics as for ``bpf_obj_drop``,
+but that would result in programs with useful, common coding patterns being
+rejected, e.g.:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ int x;
+ struct node_data *n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n)); /* ACQUIRED */
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+
+ bpf_rbtree_add(&tree, n); /* PASSED */
+ x = n->data;
+ n->data = 42;
+
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+Both the read from and write to ``n->data`` would be rejected. The verifier
+can do better, though, by taking advantage of two details:
+
+ * Graph data structure APIs can only be used when the ``bpf_spin_lock``
+ associated with the graph root is held
+
+ * Both graph data structures have pointer stability
+
+ * Because graph nodes are allocated with ``bpf_obj_new`` and
+ adding / removing from the root involves fiddling with the
+ ``bpf_{list,rb}_node`` field of the node struct, a graph node will
+ remain at the same address after either operation.
+
+Because the associated ``bpf_spin_lock`` must be held by any program adding
+or removing, if we're in the critical section bounded by that lock, we know
+that no other program can add or remove until the end of the critical section.
+This combined with pointer stability means that, until the critical section
+ends, we can safely access the graph node through ``n`` even after it was used
+to pass ownership.
+
+The verifier considers such a reference a *non-owning reference*. The ref
+returned by ``bpf_obj_new`` is accordingly considered an *owning reference*.
+Both terms currently only have meaning in the context of graph nodes and API.
+
+**Details**
+
+Let's enumerate the properties of both types of references.
+
+*owning reference*
+
+ * This reference controls the lifetime of the pointee
+
+ * Ownership of pointee must be 'released' by passing it to some graph API
+ kfunc, or via ``bpf_obj_drop``, which ``free``'s the pointee
+
+ * If not released before program ends, verifier considers program invalid
+
+ * Access to the pointee's memory will not page fault
+
+*non-owning reference*
+
+ * This reference does not own the pointee
+
+ * It cannot be used to add the graph node to a graph root, nor ``free``'d via
+ ``bpf_obj_drop``
+
+ * No explicit control of lifetime, but can infer valid lifetime based on
+ non-owning ref existence (see explanation below)
+
+ * Access to the pointee's memory will not page fault
+
+From verifier's perspective non-owning references can only exist
+between spin_lock and spin_unlock. Why? After spin_unlock another program
+can do arbitrary operations on the data structure like removing and ``free``-ing
+via bpf_obj_drop. A non-owning ref to some chunk of memory that was remove'd,
+``free``'d, and reused via bpf_obj_new would point to an entirely different thing.
+Or the memory could go away.
+
+To prevent this logic violation all non-owning references are invalidated by the
+verifier after a critical section ends. This is necessary to ensure the "will
+not page fault" property of non-owning references. So if the verifier hasn't
+invalidated a non-owning ref, accessing it will not page fault.
+
+Currently ``bpf_obj_drop`` is not allowed in the critical section, so
+if there's a valid non-owning ref, we must be in a critical section, and can
+conclude that the ref's memory hasn't been dropped-and- ``free``'d or
+dropped-and-reused.
+
+Any reference to a node that is in an rbtree _must_ be non-owning, since
+the tree has control of the pointee's lifetime. Similarly, any ref to a node
+that isn't in rbtree _must_ be owning. This results in a nice property:
+graph API add / remove implementations don't need to check if a node
+has already been added (or already removed), as the ownership model
+allows the verifier to prevent such a state from being valid by simply checking
+types.
+
+However, pointer aliasing poses an issue for the above "nice property".
+Consider the following example:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ struct node_data *n, *m, *o, *p;
+ n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n)); /* 1 */
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+
+ bpf_rbtree_add(&tree, n); /* 2 */
+ m = bpf_rbtree_first(&tree); /* 3 */
+
+ o = bpf_rbtree_remove(&tree, n); /* 4 */
+ p = bpf_rbtree_remove(&tree, m); /* 5 */
+
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+ bpf_obj_drop(o);
+ bpf_obj_drop(p); /* 6 */
+
+Assume the tree is empty before this program runs. If we track verifier state
+changes here using numbers in above comments:
+
+ 1) n is an owning reference
+
+ 2) n is a non-owning reference, it's been added to the tree
+
+ 3) n and m are non-owning references, they both point to the same node
+
+ 4) o is an owning reference, n and m non-owning, all point to same node
+
+ 5) o and p are owning, n and m non-owning, all point to the same node
+
+ 6) a double-free has occurred, since o and p point to same node and o was
+ ``free``'d in previous statement
+
+States 4 and 5 violate our "nice property", as there are non-owning refs to
+a node which is not in an rbtree. Statement 5 will try to remove a node which
+has already been removed as a result of this violation. State 6 is a dangerous
+double-free.
+
+At a minimum we should prevent state 6 from being possible. If we can't also
+prevent state 5 then we must abandon our "nice property" and check whether a
+node has already been removed at runtime.
+
+We prevent both by generalizing the "invalidate non-owning references" behavior
+of ``bpf_spin_unlock`` and doing similar invalidation after
+``bpf_rbtree_remove``. The logic here being that any graph API kfunc which:
+
+ * takes an arbitrary node argument
+
+ * removes it from the data structure
+
+ * returns an owning reference to the removed node
+
+May result in a state where some other non-owning reference points to the same
+node. So ``remove``-type kfuncs must be considered a non-owning reference
+invalidation point as well.