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: <87tt0bfsq7.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 17:41:52 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
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

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 4:52 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I see...
>> So basically when a struct ops map is created we have a fd and then
>> we can attach it (theoretically multiple times) using BPF_LINK_CREATE.
>
> Yes, exactly. "theoretically" part is true right now because of how
> things are wired up internally, but this must be fixable

Ok, one more question: do you think it's better to alter the existing
bpf_struct_ops.reg() callback and add the bpf_attr parameter
or add the new .attach() callback?