On 3/15/26 4:58 PM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
Beside, from looking at the may_update_sockmap(), I don't know if it is
even doable (or useful) to bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk) in
tc/flow_dissector/xdp. One possible path is the SOCK_FILTER when looking
at unix_dgram_sendmsg() => sk_filter(). It was not the original use case
when the bpf_map_update_elem(sockmap) support was added iirc.
What about a situation when unix_sk is stored in a sockmap, then tc prog
looks it up and invokes bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk)? I'm not sure it's
useful, but seems doable.
[ Sorry for the late reply ]
It is a bummer that the bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk) path is possible
from tc :(
Then unix_state_lock() in its current form cannot be safely acquired in
sock_map_update_elem(). It is currently a spin_lock() instead of
spin_lock_bh().
The only path left is bpf_iter, which I believe was the primary use case
when adding bpf_map_update_elem(sockmap) support [1]. It would be nice
to avoid bh_lock_sock() when calling from all bpf_iter (tcp/udp/unix)
where lock_sock() has already been done. It is more for
reading-correctness though. This just came to my mind.
has_current_bpf_ctx() can be used to check this. sockopt_lock_sock() has
been using it to conditionally take lock_sock() or not.
[ One clarification: bh_lock_sock() is a sock_map_update_elem() thing,
which can only be called by a bpf prog. IOW, has_current_bpf_ctx() is
always `true` in sock_map_update_elem(), right? ]
For all the bpf prog types allowed by may_update_sockmap() to do
bpf_map_update_elem(sockmap), only BPF_TRACE_ITER should have
has_current_bpf_ctx() == true. The tc prog (and others allowed in
may_update_sockmap()) will have has_current_bpf_ctx() == false when
calling sock_map_update_elem().
The tc case of bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk) is unfortunate and requires
going back to the drawing board. I think checking unix_peer(sk) for NULL
without acquiring unix_state_lock() is needed for the
sock_map_update_elem() path, since changing unix_state_lock() for this
unknown use case seems overkill.
Whether sock_map_update_elem_"sys"() needs unix_state_lock() is up for
debate.
For bpf_iter_unix_seq_show(), one thought is to add unix_state_lock()
there before running the bpf iter prog. iiuc, it is what Kuniyuki has in
mind also to allow bpf iter prog having a stable view of unix_sock. This
could be a followup.
[fwiw, it was why I first thought of has_current_bpf_ctx() to avoid
sock_map_update_elem() taking unix_state_lock() again if
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() acquires unix_state_lock() earlier. I later
concluded (but proved to be incorrect) that tc cannot call
bpf_map_update_elem(unix_sk).]
Let me know if I'm correctly rephrasing your idea: assume all bpf-context
callers hold the socket locked or keep it "stable" (meaning: "sk won't
surprise sockmap update by some breaking state change coming from another
thread"). As you said, most bpf iters already take the sock_lock(), and I
Right, all bpf iter (udp, tcp, unix) has acquired the lock_sock() before
running the bpf iter prog. afaik, the only exception is netlink bpf iter
but it cannot be added to sock_map afaik.
have a patch that fixes sock_{map,hash}_seq_show(). Then we could try
dropping that bh_lock_sock().
[ I would still keep patch 3 though. ]
Right.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
In a parallel thread I've asked Kuniyuki if it might be better to
completely drop patch 2/5, which would change how we interact with
sock_map_close(). Lets see how it goes.
If patch 2 is dropped, lock_sock() is always needed for unix_sk?
For sock_map_update_elem_sys() I wanted to lock_sock()+unix_state_lock()
following Kuniyuki's suggestion to keep locking pattern/order (that repeats
when unix bpf iter prog invokes bpf_map_update_elem() ->
sock_map_update_elem()). For sock_map_update_elem() not, we can't sleep there.
