linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/14] mm: introduce bpf struct ops for OOM handling

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: <877bxb77eh.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 19:00:38 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,  Kumar Kartikeya
 Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,  linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,  bpf
 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,  Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,  Johannes
 Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,  Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,  David
 Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,  Matt Bobrowski
 <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,  Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,  Alexei
 Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,  Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
  LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/14] mm: introduce bpf struct ops for OOM handling

Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> writes:

> On 9/2/25 10:31 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Btw, what's the right way to attach struct ops to a cgroup, if there is
>> one? Add a cgroup_id field to the struct and use it in the .reg()
>
> Adding a cgroup id/fd field to the struct bpf_oom_ops will be hard to
> attach the same bpf_oom_ops to multiple cgroups.
>
>> callback? Or there is something better?
>
> There is a link_create.target_fd in the "union bpf_attr". The
> cgroup_bpf_link_attach() is using it as cgroup fd. May be it can be
> used here also. This will limit it to link attach only. Meaning the
> SEC(".struct_ops.link") is supported but not the older
> SEC(".struct_ops"). I think this should be fine.

I thought a bit more about it (sorry for the delay):
if we want to be able to attach a single struct ops to multiple cgroups
(and potentially other objects, e.g. sockets), we can't really
use the existing struct ops's bpf_link.

So I guess we need to add a new .attach() function beside .reg()
which will take the existing link and struct bpf_attr as arguments and
return a new bpf_link. And in libbpf we need a corresponding new
bpf_link__attach_cgroup().

Does it sound right?