[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ7eJa7C8=eRL3XoRjmccgD0udoyoi38MOjo7H0rsnZOYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:17:42 +0100
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:27 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> > To access per-task data, BPF program typically creates a hash table with
> > pid as the key. This is not ideal because:
> > 1. The use need to estimate requires size of the hash table, with may be
> > inaccurate;
> > 2. Big hash tables are slow;
> > 3. To clean up the data properly during task terminations, the user need
> > to write code.
> >
> > Task local storage overcomes these issues and becomes a better option for
> > these per-task data. Task local storage is only available to BPF_LSM. Now
> > enable it for tracing programs.
> >
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > ---
[...]
> > struct cfs_rq;
> > struct fs_struct;
> > @@ -1348,6 +1349,10 @@ struct task_struct {
> > /* Used by LSM modules for access restriction: */
> > void *security;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > + /* Used by BPF task local storage */
> > + struct bpf_local_storage *bpf_storage;
> > +#endif
>
> I remembered there is a discussion where KP initially wanted to put
> bpf_local_storage in task_struct, but later on changed to
> use in lsm as his use case mostly for lsm. Did anybody
> remember the details of the discussion? Just want to be
> sure what is the concern people has with putting bpf_local_storage
> in task_struct and whether the use case presented by
> Song will justify it.
>
If I recall correctly, the discussion was about inode local storage and
it was decided to use the security blob since the use-case was only LSM
programs. Since we now plan to use it in tracing,
detangling the dependency from CONFIG_BPF_LSM
sounds logical to me.
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> > unsigned long lowest_stack;
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > index d1249340fd6ba..ca995fdfa45e7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > @@ -8,9 +8,8 @@ CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init) $(cflags-nogcse-yy)
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o task_iter.o prog_iter.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o bpf_task_storage.o
> > obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_inode_storage.o
> > -obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_task_storage.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += disasm.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) += trampoline.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += btf.o
> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists