[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e71a26e7-1a78-7e4d-23d6-20070541524d@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 17:14:03 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/20] bpf: support bpf tracing/iter programs
for BPF_LINK_CREATE
On 5/5/20 2:30 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:26 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>
>> Given a bpf program, the step to create an anonymous bpf iterator is:
>> - create a bpf_iter_link, which combines bpf program and the target.
>> In the future, there could be more information recorded in the link.
>> A link_fd will be returned to the user space.
>> - create an anonymous bpf iterator with the given link_fd.
>>
>> The bpf_iter_link can be pinned to bpffs mount file system to
>> create a file based bpf iterator as well.
>>
>> The benefit to use of bpf_iter_link:
>> - using bpf link simplifies design and implementation as bpf link
>> is used for other tracing bpf programs.
>> - for file based bpf iterator, bpf_iter_link provides a standard
>> way to replace underlying bpf programs.
>> - for both anonymous and free based iterators, bpf link query
>> capability can be leveraged.
>>
>> The patch added support of tracing/iter programs for BPF_LINK_CREATE.
>> A new link type BPF_LINK_TYPE_ITER is added to facilitate link
>> querying. Currently, only prog_id is needed, so there is no
>> additional in-kernel show_fdinfo() and fill_link_info() hook
>> is needed for BPF_LINK_TYPE_ITER link.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>> ---
>
> LGTM. See small nit about __GFP_NOWARN.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
>
>> include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
>> include/linux/bpf_types.h | 1 +
>> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
>> kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 14 ++++++++
>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
>> 6 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +int bpf_iter_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_link_primer link_primer;
>> + struct bpf_iter_target_info *tinfo;
>> + struct bpf_iter_link *link;
>> + bool existed = false;
>> + u32 prog_btf_id;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + if (attr->link_create.target_fd || attr->link_create.flags)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + prog_btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
>> + mutex_lock(&targets_mutex);
>> + list_for_each_entry(tinfo, &targets, list) {
>> + if (tinfo->btf_id == prog_btf_id) {
>> + existed = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&targets_mutex);
>> + if (!existed)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> + link = kzalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
>
> nit: all existing link implementation don't specify __GFP_NOWARN,
> wonder if bpf_iter_link should be special?
Nothing special. Just feel __GFP_NOWARN is the right thing to do to
avoid pollute dmesg since -ENOMEM is returned to user space. But in
reality, unlike some key/value allocation where the size could be huge
and __GFP_NOWARN might be more useful, here, sizeof(*link) is fixed
and small, __GFP_NOWARN probably not that useful.
Will drop it.
>
>> + if (!link)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + bpf_link_init(&link->link, BPF_LINK_TYPE_ITER, &bpf_iter_link_lops, prog);
>> + link->tinfo = tinfo;
>> +
>> + err = bpf_link_prime(&link->link, &link_primer);
>> + if (err) {
>> + kfree(link);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return bpf_link_settle(&link_primer);
>> +}
>
> [...]
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists