Re: [PATCH bpf-next RESEND v4 1/2] bpf: refactor max_depth computation in bpf_get_stack()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 8/25/25 9:39 AM, Lecomte, Arnaud wrote:

On 19/08/2025 22:15, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 8/19/25 9:26 AM, Arnaud Lecomte wrote:
A new helper function stack_map_calculate_max_depth() that
computes the max depth for a stackmap.

Changes in v2:
  - Removed the checking 'map_size % map_elem_size' from
    stack_map_calculate_max_depth
  - Changed stack_map_calculate_max_depth params name to be more generic

Changes in v3:
  - Changed map size param to size in max depth helper

Changes in v4:
  - Fixed indentation in max depth helper for args

Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/09dc40eb-a84e-472a-8a68-36a2b1835308@xxxxxxxxx/

Signed-off-by: Arnaud Lecomte <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
index 3615c06b7dfa..b9cc6c72a2a5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
@@ -42,6 +42,27 @@ static inline int stack_map_data_size(struct bpf_map *map)
          sizeof(struct bpf_stack_build_id) : sizeof(u64);
  }
  +/**
+ * stack_map_calculate_max_depth - Calculate maximum allowed stack trace depth
+ * @size:  Size of the buffer/map value in bytes
+ * @elem_size:  Size of each stack trace element
+ * @flags:  BPF stack trace flags (BPF_F_USER_STACK, BPF_F_USER_BUILD_ID, ...)
+ *
+ * Return: Maximum number of stack trace entries that can be safely stored
+ */
+static u32 stack_map_calculate_max_depth(u32 size, u32 elem_size, u64 flags)
+{
+    u32 skip = flags & BPF_F_SKIP_FIELD_MASK;
+    u32 max_depth;
+
+    max_depth = size / elem_size;
+    max_depth += skip;
+    if (max_depth > sysctl_perf_event_max_stack)
+        return sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;

hmm... this looks a bit suspicious. Is it possible that sysctl_perf_event_max_stack is being changed to a larger value in parallel?

Hi Martin, this is a valid concern as sysctl_perf_event_max_stack can be modified at runtime through /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_max_stack. What we could maybe do instead is to create a copy: u32 current_max = READ_ONCE(sysctl_perf_event_max_stack);
Any thoughts on this ?

There is no need to have READ_ONCE. Jut do
    int curr_sysctl_max_stack = sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;
    if (max_depth > curr_sysctl_max_stack)
      return curr_sysctl_max_stack;

Because of the above change, the patch is not a refactoring change any more.


+
+    return max_depth;
+}
+
  static int prealloc_elems_and_freelist(struct bpf_stack_map *smap)
  {
      u64 elem_size = sizeof(struct stack_map_bucket) +
@@ -406,7 +427,7 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task,
                  struct perf_callchain_entry *trace_in,
                  void *buf, u32 size, u64 flags, bool may_fault)
  {
-    u32 trace_nr, copy_len, elem_size, num_elem, max_depth;
+    u32 trace_nr, copy_len, elem_size, max_depth;
      bool user_build_id = flags & BPF_F_USER_BUILD_ID;
      bool crosstask = task && task != current;
      u32 skip = flags & BPF_F_SKIP_FIELD_MASK;
@@ -438,10 +459,7 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task,
          goto clear;
      }
  -    num_elem = size / elem_size;
-    max_depth = num_elem + skip;
-    if (sysctl_perf_event_max_stack < max_depth)
-        max_depth = sysctl_perf_event_max_stack;
+    max_depth = stack_map_calculate_max_depth(size, elem_size, flags);
        if (may_fault)
          rcu_read_lock(); /* need RCU for perf's callchain below */
@@ -461,7 +479,7 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task,
      }
        trace_nr = trace->nr - skip;
-    trace_nr = (trace_nr <= num_elem) ? trace_nr : num_elem;

I suspect it was fine because trace_nr was still bounded by num_elem.

We should bring back the num_elem bound as an additional safe net.
+    trace_nr = min(trace_nr, max_depth - skip);

but now the min() is also based on max_depth which could be sysctl_perf_event_max_stack.

beside, if I read it correctly, in "max_depth - skip", the max_depth could also be less than skip. I assume trace->nr is bound by max_depth, so should be less of a problem but still a bit unintuitive to read.

      copy_len = trace_nr * elem_size;
        ips = trace->ip + skip;






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux