Message-ID: <CAADnVQKgmA7kVG_VbTdZAb6wN2ivdAoh28pfS+ZP4tnMje8vbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 07:23:15 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: verifier: allow arrays of progs to be used in
 sleepable context

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:04 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On May 08 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:53 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On May 07 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:32 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, exactly that. See [0] for my current WIP. I've just sent it, not
> > > > > for reviews, but so you see what I meant here.
> > > >
> > > > The patches helped to understand, for sure, and on surface
> > > > they kind of make sense, but without seeing what is that
> > > > hid specific kfunc that will use it
> > > > it's hard to make a call.
> > >
> > > I've posted my HID WIP on [1]. It probably won't compile as my local
> > > original branch was having a merge of HID and bpf trees.
> >
> > Thanks for this context.
> > Now it makes a lot more sense.
> > And the first patches look fine and simplification is impressive,
> > but this part:
> > +     SEC("syscall")
> > +     int name(struct attach_prog_args *ctx)
> > +     {
> > +       ctx->retval = hid_bpf_attach_prog_impl(ctx->hid,
> > +                                                 type,
> > +                                                 __##name,
> > +                           ctx->insert_head ? HID_BPF_FLAG_INSERT_HEAD :
> > +                                                 HID_BPF_FLAG_NONE,
> > +                                                 NULL);
> >
> > is too odd.
> > Essentially you're adding a kfunc on hid side just to call it
> > from a temporary "syscall" program to register another prog.
> > A fake prog just to call a kfunc is a bit too much.
> >
> > The overall mechanism is pretty much a customized struct-ops.
> >
> > I think struct-ops infra provides better api-s, safety guarantees,
> > bpf_link support, prog management including reentrance check, etc.
>
> Ack!
>
> > It needs to be parametrized, so it's not just
> > SEC("struct_ops/kern_callback_name")
> > so that the skeleton loading phase can pass device id or something.
>
> I'm not sure how to parametrize staticaly. I can rely on the modalias,
> but then that might not be ideal. Right now my loader gets called by a
> udev rule, and then call a .probe syscall. If this returns success, then
> the bpf programs are attached to the given hid device.
>
> I saw that the struct_ops can have "data" fields. If we can change the
> static value before calling attach, I should have a register callback
> being able to retrieve that hid id, and then attach the struct_ops to
> the correct hid device in the jump table. Anyway, I'll test this later.

yep.

> Something along:
>
> SEC(".struct_ops")
> struct hid_bpf_ops dummy_1 = {
>         .input_event = (void *)test_1,
>         .rdesc_fixup = (void *)test_2,
>         .hw_raw_request = (void *)test_sleepable,
>         .hid_id = 0,
> };
>
> And in the loader, I call __load(), change the value ->hid_id, and then
> __attach().

__open() then change hid_id then __load().

See prog_tests/test_struct_ops_module.c.

>
> >
> > > > The (u64)(long) casting concerns and prog lifetime are
> > > > difficult to get right. The verifier won't help and it all
> > > > will fall on code reviews.
> > >
> > > yeah, this is a concern.
> >
> > Not only that. The special kfunc does migrate_disable
> > before calling callback, but it needs rcu_lock or tracing lock,
> > plus reentrance checks.
> >
> > >
> > > > So I'd rather not go this route.
> > > > Let's explore first what exactly the goal here.
> > > > We've talked about sleepable tail_calls, this async callbacks
> > > > from hid kfuncs, and struct-ops.
> > > > Maybe none of them fit well and we need something else.
> > > > Could you please explain (maybe once again) what is the end goal?
> > >
> > > right now I need 4 hooks in HID, the first 2 are already upstream:
> > > - whenever I need to retrieve the report descriptor (this happens in a
> > >   sleepable context, but non sleepable is fine)
> > > - whenever I receive an event from a device (non sleepable context, this
> > >   is coming from a hard IRQ context)
> > > - whenever someone tries to write to the device through
> > >   hid_hw_raw_request (original context is sleepable, and for being able
> > >   to communicate with the device we need sleepable context in bpf)
> > > - same but from hid_hw_output_report
> > >
> > > Again, the first 2 are working just fine.
> > >
> > > Implementing the latter twos requires sleepable context because we
> > > might:
> > >
> > > 1. a request is made from user-space
> > > 2. we jump into hid-bpf
> > > 3. the bpf program "converts" the request from report ID 1 to 2 (because
> > > we export a slightly different API)
> > > 4. the bpf program directly emits hid_bpf_raw_request (sleepable
> > > operation)
> > > 5. the bpf program returns the correct value
> > > 6. hid-core doesn't attempt to communicate with the device as bpf
> > > already did.
> > >
> > > In the series, I also realized that I need sleepable and non sleepable
> > > contexts for this kind of situation, because I want tracing and
> > > firewalling available (non sleepable context), while still allowing to
> > > communicate with the device. But when you communicate with the device
> > > from bpf, the sleepable bpf program is not invoked or this allows
> > > infinite loops.
> >
> > I don't get the point about infinite loops.
>
> If I don´t put restrictions on how the bpf program communicate with the
> device I might have:
>
> 1. someone calls hid_hw_raw_request from hidraw
> 2. bpf jumps into filter for hid_hw_raw_request
> 3. the bpf program calls hid_bpf_raw_request (which internally calls
> hid_hw_raw_request)
> 4. go back to 2.

sleepable progs also have recursion checks.
So if it recurses into the same prog it will catch it.
Ideally, of course, such loops are prevented statically.

> But again, not a big deal: if I do not allow entering a sleepable bpf
> program from hid_bpf_raw_request (so from a bpf program), instead of 4.
> above, we prevent entering the same bpf program as the program in 2.
> needs to be sleepable.
>
> > fyi struct_ops already supports sleepable and non-sleepable callbacks.
> > See progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c
> > SEC(".struct_ops")
> > struct bpf_dummy_ops dummy_1 = {
> >         .test_1 = (void *)test_1,
> >         .test_2 = (void *)test_2,
> >         .test_sleepable = (void *)test_sleepable,
> > };
> >
> > two callbacks are normal and another one is sleepable.
> >
> > The generated bpf trampoline will have the right
> > __bpf_prog_enter* wrappers for all 3 progs,
> > so the kernel code will be just do ops->callback_name().
>
> Great!
>
> So I think I have most of the pieces available... I just need to write
> the code :)
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Last time I checked, I thought struct_ops were only for defining one set
> > > > > of operations. And you could overwrite them exactly once.
> > > > > But after reading more carefully how it was used in tcp_cong.c, it seems
> > > > > we can have multiple programs which define the same struct_ops, and then
> > > > > it's the kernel which will choose which one needs to be run.
> > > >
> > > > struct-ops is pretty much a mechanism for kernel to define
> > > > a set of callbacks and bpf prog to provide implementation for
> > > > these callbacks. The kernel choses when to call them.
> > > > tcp-bpf is one such user. sched_ext is another and more advanced.
> > > > Currently struct-ops bpf prog loading/attaching mechanism
> > > > only specifies the struct-ops. There is no device-id argument,
> > > > but that can be extended and kernel can keep per-device a set
> > > > of bpf progs.
> > > > struct-ops is a bit of overkill if you have only one callback.
> > > > It's typically for a set of callbacks.
> > >
> > > In the end I have 4. However, I might have programs that overwrite twice
> > > the same callback (see the 2 SEC("fmod_ret/hid_bpf_device_event") in
> > > [2]).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Last, I'm not entirely sure how I can specify which struct_ops needs to be
> > > > > attached to which device, but it's worth a shot. I've already realized
> > > > > that I would probably have to drop the current way of HID-BPF is running,
> > > > > so now it's just technical bits to assemble :)
> > > >
> > > > You need to call different bpf progs per device, right?
> > >
> > > yes
> > >
> > > > If indirect call is fine from performance pov,
> > > > then tailcall or struct_ops+device_argument might fit.
> > >
> > > performance is not a requirement. It's better if we have low latency but
> > > we are not talking the same requirements than network.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you want max perf with direct calls then
> > > > we'd need to generalize xdp dispatcher.
> > >
> > > I'll need to have a deeper look at it, yeah.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So far it sounds that tailcalls might be the best actually,
> > > > since prog lifetime is handled by prog array map.
> > > > Maybe instead of bpf_tail_call helper we should add a kfunc that
> > > > will operate on prog array differently?
> > > > (if current bpf_tail_call semantics don't fit).
> > >
> > > Actually I'd like to remove bpf_tail_call entirely, because it requires
> > > to pre-load a BPF program at boot, and in some situations (RHEL) this
> > > creates issues. I haven't been able to debug what was happening, I
> > > couldn't reproduce it myself, but removing that bit would be nice :)
> >
> > We probably need to debug it anyway, since it sounds that it's
> > related to preloaded bpf skeleton and not tail_call logic itself.
>
> I really think this happens with RHEL because some part are backported and
> some are not. So unless we get upstream reports, it's more likely a RHEL
> only issue (which makes things even harder to debug for me).
>
> >
> > After looking through all that it seems to me that
> > parametrized struct-ops is the way to go.
>
> Yeah, I think so too. I'll proabbly start working on it next Monday.

A bunch of us will be at lsfmmbpf next week.
So email traffic will be slow.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists