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: <CAEf4BzafXv-PstSAP6krers=S74ri1+zTB4Y2oT6f+33yznqsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 16:21:24 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 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

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 7:01 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Not really, but I also might be missing some details (I haven't read
the entire thread).

But conceptually, what you describe is not how things work w.r.t. BPF
links and attachment.

You don't attach a link to some hook (e.g., cgroup). You attach either
BPF program or (as in this case) BPF struct_ops map to a hook (i.e.,
cgroup), and get back the BPF link. That BPF link describes that one
attachment of prog/struct_ops to that hook. Each attachment gets its
own BPF link FD.

So, there cannot be bpf_link__attach_cgroup(), but there can be (at
least conceptually) bpf_map__attach_cgroup(), where map is struct_ops
map.

Having said that, we do have bpf_map__attach_struct_ops() already
(it's using BPF_LINK_CREATE command under the hood), and so perhaps
the right way is to have bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts() API, which
will accept optional extra attachment parameters which will be passed
into bpf_attr.link_create.struct_ops section of UAPI. That thing can
have target FD, where FD is cgroup/task/whatever we need to specify
attachment target. Just like we do that for BPF program's
BPF_LINK_CREATE, really.