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: <CAHzjS_v+N7UO-yEt-d0w3nE5_Y1LExQ5hFWYnHqARp9L-5P_cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 18:07:03 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, 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 Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 5:42 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
[...]
> >> >
> >> > 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?

IIUC, bpf_struct_ops_link is just for bpf_struct_ops.reg(). The
attach() operation can be separate, and it doesn't need to be
implemented in sys_bpf() syscall. BPF TCP congestion control
uses setsockopt() to do the attach(). Current sched_ext does
the attach as part of reg(). Tejun is proposing to use reg() for
sub scheduler [1]. In my earlier patch set for fanotify-bpf, I
was planning to use ioctl on the fanotify fd [2]. I think these
all work for the given use case.

I am not sure what is the best option for cgroup oom killer. There
are multiple options. Technically, it can even be a sysfs entry.
We can use it as:

# load and pin oom killers first
$ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/oom.killer
[oom_a] oom_b oom_c
$ echo oom_b > /sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/oom.killer
$ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/user.slice/oom.killer
oom_a [oom_b] oom_c

Note that, I am not proposing to use sysfs entries for oom killer.
I just want to say it is an option.

Given attach() can be implemented in different ways, we probably
don't need to add it to bpf_struct_ops. But if that turns out to be
the best option, I would not argue against it. OTOH, I think it is
better to keep reg() and attach() separate, though sched_ext is
using reg() for both options.

Does this make sense?

Thanks,
Song

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250920005931.2753828-1-tj@kernel.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20241114084345.1564165-1-song@kernel.org/