Skip to content

MAINTAINERS entry - small correction? #123

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.

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

Closed
jabedude opened this issue Mar 18, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #125
Closed

MAINTAINERS entry - small correction? #123

jabedude opened this issue Mar 18, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #125
Labels
• misc Related to other topics (e.g. CI).

Comments

@jabedude
Copy link

Hi all, looks like this entry in MAINTAINERS references a non-existent file:

linux/MAINTAINERS

Line 15558 in 967a297

F: drivers/char/rust_example/

Should this instead be:

F:	drivers/char/rust_example.rs
@ojeda ojeda added prio: high • misc Related to other topics (e.g. CI). labels Mar 18, 2021
@ojeda
Copy link
Member

ojeda commented Mar 18, 2021

Yeah, it should. I didn't get around to update the entry (that file will also move somewhere else very soon, too :-)

Thanks for reporting! I thought nobody read those ;-)

ojeda added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2021
  - Add Alex and Miguel as maintainers.
  - Sort the keys properly.
  - Remove the unexisting `F:` key.
  - Add `B:` and `T:` keys.

Fixes #123.

Reported-by: Josh Abraham <sinisterpatrician@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
ojeda pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2024
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 <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
metaspace pushed a commit to metaspace/linux that referenced this issue Dec 17, 2024
[ Upstream commit 4174867 ]

When trying to insert a 10MB kernel module kept in a virtio-fs with cache
disabled, the following warning was reported:

  ------------[ cut here ]------------
  WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 404 at mm/page_alloc.c:4551 ......
  Modules linked in:
  CPU: 1 PID: 404 Comm: insmod Not tainted 6.9.0-rc5+ Rust-for-Linux#123
  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996) ......
  RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x2bf/0x380
  ......
  Call Trace:
   <TASK>
   ? __warn+0x8e/0x150
   ? __alloc_pages+0x2bf/0x380
   __kmalloc_large_node+0x86/0x160
   __kmalloc+0x33c/0x480
   virtio_fs_enqueue_req+0x240/0x6d0
   virtio_fs_wake_pending_and_unlock+0x7f/0x190
   queue_request_and_unlock+0x55/0x60
   fuse_simple_request+0x152/0x2b0
   fuse_direct_io+0x5d2/0x8c0
   fuse_file_read_iter+0x121/0x160
   __kernel_read+0x151/0x2d0
   kernel_read+0x45/0x50
   kernel_read_file+0x1a9/0x2a0
   init_module_from_file+0x6a/0xe0
   idempotent_init_module+0x175/0x230
   __x64_sys_finit_module+0x5d/0xb0
   x64_sys_call+0x1c3/0x9e0
   do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xc0
   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
   ......
   </TASK>
  ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

The warning is triggered as follows:

1) syscall finit_module() handles the module insertion and it invokes
kernel_read_file() to read the content of the module first.

2) kernel_read_file() allocates a 10MB buffer by using vmalloc() and
passes it to kernel_read(). kernel_read() constructs a kvec iter by
using iov_iter_kvec() and passes it to fuse_file_read_iter().

3) virtio-fs disables the cache, so fuse_file_read_iter() invokes
fuse_direct_io(). As for now, the maximal read size for kvec iter is
only limited by fc->max_read. For virtio-fs, max_read is UINT_MAX, so
fuse_direct_io() doesn't split the 10MB buffer. It saves the address and
the size of the 10MB-sized buffer in out_args[0] of a fuse request and
passes the fuse request to virtio_fs_wake_pending_and_unlock().

4) virtio_fs_wake_pending_and_unlock() uses virtio_fs_enqueue_req() to
queue the request. Because virtiofs need DMA-able address, so
virtio_fs_enqueue_req() uses kmalloc() to allocate a bounce buffer for
all fuse args, copies these args into the bounce buffer and passed the
physical address of the bounce buffer to virtiofsd. The total length of
these fuse args for the passed fuse request is about 10MB, so
copy_args_to_argbuf() invokes kmalloc() with a 10MB size parameter and
it triggers the warning in __alloc_pages():

	if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(order > MAX_PAGE_ORDER, gfp))
		return NULL;

5) virtio_fs_enqueue_req() will retry the memory allocation in a
kworker, but it won't help, because kmalloc() will always return NULL
due to the abnormal size and finit_module() will hang forever.

A feasible solution is to limit the value of max_read for virtio-fs, so
the length passed to kmalloc() will be limited. However it will affect
the maximal read size for normal read. And for virtio-fs write initiated
from kernel, it has the similar problem but now there is no way to limit
fc->max_write in kernel.

So instead of limiting both the values of max_read and max_write in
kernel, introducing use_pages_for_kvec_io in fuse_conn and setting it as
true in virtiofs. When use_pages_for_kvec_io is enabled, fuse will use
pages instead of pointer to pass the KVEC_IO data.

After switching to pages for KVEC_IO data, these pages will be used for
DMA through virtio-fs. If these pages are backed by vmalloc(),
{flush|invalidate}_kernel_vmap_range() are necessary to flush or
invalidate the cache before the DMA operation. So add two new fields in
fuse_args_pages to record the base address of vmalloc area and the
condition indicating whether invalidation is needed. Perform the flush
in fuse_get_user_pages() for write operations and the invalidation in
fuse_release_user_pages() for read operations.

It may seem necessary to introduce another field in fuse_conn to
indicate that these KVEC_IO pages are used for DMA, However, considering
that virtio-fs is currently the only user of use_pages_for_kvec_io, just
reuse use_pages_for_kvec_io to indicate that these pages will be used
for DMA.

Fixes: a62a8ef ("virtio-fs: add virtiofs filesystem")
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Tested-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
• misc Related to other topics (e.g. CI).
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants