linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add bpf_iter test with bpf_get_task

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d4f43b4b-af99-1a80-7eb7-5c7e892db1bb@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:52:24 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <kernel-team@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add bpf_iter test with
 bpf_get_task_stack()



On 6/25/20 5:13 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> The new test is similar to other bpf_iter tests.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> ---
>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c       | 17 ++++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
> index 87c29dde1cf96..baa83328f810d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>   #include "bpf_iter_netlink.skel.h"
>   #include "bpf_iter_bpf_map.skel.h"
>   #include "bpf_iter_task.skel.h"
> +#include "bpf_iter_task_stack.skel.h"
>   #include "bpf_iter_task_file.skel.h"
>   #include "bpf_iter_test_kern1.skel.h"
>   #include "bpf_iter_test_kern2.skel.h"
> @@ -106,6 +107,20 @@ static void test_task(void)
>   	bpf_iter_task__destroy(skel);
>   }
>   
> +static void test_task_stack(void)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_iter_task_stack *skel;
> +
> +	skel = bpf_iter_task_stack__open_and_load();
> +	if (CHECK(!skel, "bpf_iter_task_stack__open_and_load",
> +		  "skeleton open_and_load failed\n"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	do_dummy_read(skel->progs.dump_task_stack);
> +
> +	bpf_iter_task_stack__destroy(skel);
> +}
> +
>   static void test_task_file(void)
>   {
>   	struct bpf_iter_task_file *skel;
> @@ -392,6 +407,8 @@ void test_bpf_iter(void)
>   		test_bpf_map();
>   	if (test__start_subtest("task"))
>   		test_task();
> +	if (test__start_subtest("task_stack"))
> +		test_task_stack();
>   	if (test__start_subtest("task_file"))
>   		test_task_file();
>   	if (test__start_subtest("anon"))
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..83aca5b1a7965
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
> +/* "undefine" structs in vmlinux.h, because we "override" them below */
> +#define bpf_iter_meta bpf_iter_meta___not_used
> +#define bpf_iter__task bpf_iter__task___not_used
> +#include "vmlinux.h"
> +#undef bpf_iter_meta
> +#undef bpf_iter__task
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>

Could you rebase on top of latest bpf-next?
A new header bpf_iter.h is introduced and it will
make code simpler.

> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +/* bpf_get_task_stack needs a stackmap to work */
> +struct {
> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE);
> +	__uint(max_entries, 16384);
> +	__uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
> +	__uint(value_size, sizeof(__u64) * 20);
> +} stackmap SEC(".maps");
> +
> +struct bpf_iter_meta {
> +	struct seq_file *seq;
> +	__u64 session_id;
> +	__u64 seq_num;
> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +
> +struct bpf_iter__task {
> +	struct bpf_iter_meta *meta;
> +	struct task_struct *task;
> +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> +
> +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH   64
> +unsigned long entries[MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH];
> +
> +SEC("iter/task")
> +int dump_task_stack(struct bpf_iter__task *ctx)
> +{
> +	struct seq_file *seq = ctx->meta->seq;
> +	struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
> +	int i, retlen;

long retlen after rebase?

> +
> +	if (task == (void *)0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	retlen = bpf_get_task_stack(task, entries,
> +				    MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH * sizeof(unsigned long), 0);
> +	if (retlen < 0) > +		return 0;
> +
> +	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "pid: %8u num_entries: %8u\n", task->pid,
> +		       retlen / sizeof(unsigned long));

sizeof(unsigned long) is used a few times. It is worthwhile to
have a variable for it.

> +	for (i = 0; i < MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long); i++) {
> +		if (retlen > i * sizeof(unsigned long))
> +			BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "[<0>] %pB\n", (void *)entries[i]);
> +	}
> +	BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "\n");
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
>