[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fe5d8d02-b263-c373-9ab8-c709f4c5841f@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 17:54:05 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
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>,
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 5:14 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> 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.
actually all existing user space driven allocation have nowarn.
If we missed it in other link allocs we should probably add it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists