From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
[ Upstream commit 10ec8ca8ec1a2f04c4ed90897225231c58c124a7 ]
We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following:
After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the following error:
Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]": OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process: unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel: error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown
However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to 5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads.
We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528) which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}' was steadily increasing.
I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter, seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective.
The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in 2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF consumers today.
Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users running into potentially hard to debug issues.
Fixes: fdadd04931c2 ("bpf: fix bpf_jit_limit knob for PAGE_SIZE >= 64K") Reported-by: Stephen Haynes sh@synk.net Reported-by: Lefteris Alexakis lefteris.alexakis@kpn.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1179 Link: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-eks-ami/issues/1219 Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima kuniyu@amazon.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320143725.8394-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- kernel/bpf/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 73d4b1e32fbdb..d3f6a070875cb 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int __init bpf_jit_charge_init(void) { /* Only used as heuristic here to derive limit. */ bpf_jit_limit_max = bpf_jit_alloc_exec_limit(); - bpf_jit_limit = min_t(u64, round_up(bpf_jit_limit_max >> 2, + bpf_jit_limit = min_t(u64, round_up(bpf_jit_limit_max >> 1, PAGE_SIZE), LONG_MAX); return 0; }