On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 5:50 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 8:48 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 03:19:41PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > We will utilize this new kfunc bpf_mm_get_task() to retrieve the
> > > associated task_struct from the given @mm. The obtained task_struct must
> > > be released by calling bpf_task_release() as a paired operation.
> >
> > You're basically describing the patch you're not saying why - yeah you're
> > getting a task struct from an mm (only if CONFIG_MEMCG which you don't
> > mention here), but not for what purpose you intend to use this?
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/bpf_thp.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/bpf_thp.c b/mm/bpf_thp.c
> > > index b757e8f425fd..46b3bc96359e 100644
> > > --- a/mm/bpf_thp.c
> > > +++ b/mm/bpf_thp.c
> > > @@ -205,11 +205,45 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > #endif
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * bpf_mm_get_task - Get the task struct associated with a mm_struct.
> > > + * @mm: The mm_struct to query
> > > + *
> > > + * The obtained task_struct must be released by calling bpf_task_release().
> >
> > Hmmm so now bpf programs can cause kernel bugs by keeping a reference around?
>
> BPF verifier will reject any program that cannot guarantee that
> bpf_task_release() will always be called. So there shouldn't be any
> problem here.
Thanks for the clarification.
>
> >
> > This feels extremely dodgy, I don't like this at all.
> >
> > I thought the whole point of BPF was that this kind of thing couldn't possibly
> > happen?
> >
> > Or would this be a kernel bug?
> >
> > If a bpf program can lead to a refcount not being put, this is not
> > upstreamable surely?
> >
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: The associated task_struct on success, or NULL on failure. Note that
> > > + * this function depends on CONFIG_MEMCG being enabled - it will always return
> > > + * NULL if CONFIG_MEMCG is not configured.
> > > + */
> > > +__bpf_kfunc struct task_struct *bpf_mm_get_task(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > > + struct task_struct *task;
> > > +
> > > + if (!mm)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + task = rcu_dereference(mm->owner);
>
> Question to Yafang, though. Instead of adding new kfunc just for this,
> have you tried marking mm->owner as BTF_TYPE_SAFE_TRUSTED_OR_NULL,
> which, if I understand correctly, would allow BPF program to just work
> with `mm->owner` (after checking for NULL) directly. And then you can
> just use existing bpf_task_acquire()
good suggestion.
will change it.
>
> >
> > > + if (!task)
> > > + goto out;
> > > + if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&task->rcu_users))
> > > + goto out;
>
> nit: just call bpf_task_acquire(), which will more obviously pair with
> suggested bpf_task_release()?
makes sense.
--
Regards
Yafang
