[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52eb82c3-2272-1707-9de7-8347b57b933c@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 00:11:15 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Joe Burton <jevburton.kernel@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, ppenkov@...gle.com,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com
Cc: Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/3] bpf: Add map tracing functions and call
sites
On 1/5/22 4:03 AM, Joe Burton wrote:
> From: Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
>
> Add two functions that fentry/fexit/fmod_ret programs can attach to:
> bpf_map_trace_update_elem
> bpf_map_trace_delete_elem
> These functions have the same arguments as bpf_map_{update,delete}_elem.
>
> Invoke these functions from the following map types:
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH
>
> The only guarantee about these functions is that they are invoked before
> the corresponding action occurs. Other conditions may prevent the
> corresponding action from occurring after the function is invoked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/Makefile | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 4 +++-
> kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> kernel/bpf/map_trace.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/map_trace.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/map_trace.c
> create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/map_trace.h
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> index c1a9be6a4b9f..0cf38dab339a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ 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-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o bloom_filter.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += bpf_local_storage.o bpf_task_storage.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += bpf_local_storage.o bpf_task_storage.o map_trace.o
> obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_inode_storage.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += disasm.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) += trampoline.o
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> index c7a5be3bf8be..e9e7bd27ffad 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> #include <linux/rcupdate_trace.h>
>
> #include "map_in_map.h"
> +#include "map_trace.h"
>
> #define ARRAY_CREATE_FLAG_MASK \
> (BPF_F_NUMA_NODE | BPF_F_MMAPABLE | BPF_F_ACCESS_MASK | \
> @@ -329,7 +330,8 @@ static int array_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
> copy_map_value(map, val, value);
> check_and_free_timer_in_array(array, val);
> }
> - return 0;
> +
> + return bpf_map_trace_update_elem(map, key, value, map_flags);
Given post-update, do you have a use case where you make use of the fmod_ret for
propagating non-zero ret codes?
Could you also extend commit description on rationale to not add these dummy
funcs more higher level, e.g. into map_update_elem() upon success?
[...]
> @@ -1133,6 +1137,10 @@ static int htab_lru_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
> /* unknown flags */
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + ret = bpf_map_trace_update_elem(map, key, value, map_flags);
> + if (unlikely(ret))
> + return ret;
> +
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_trace_held() &&
> !rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>
> @@ -1182,6 +1190,8 @@ static int htab_lru_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
> else if (l_old)
> htab_lru_push_free(htab, l_old);
>
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = bpf_map_trace_update_elem(map, key, value, map_flags);
> return ret;
> }
Here, it's pre and post update, is that intentional?
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists