[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b8e687d-b572-ab12-8595-3ab14d58caad@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:56:17 -0800
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
CC: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing
programs
On 1/11/21 2:17 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:27 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>> To access per-task data, BPF program typically creates a hash table with
>>> pid as the key. This is not ideal because:
>>> 1. The use need to estimate requires size of the hash table, with may be
>>> inaccurate;
>>> 2. Big hash tables are slow;
>>> 3. To clean up the data properly during task terminations, the user need
>>> to write code.
>>>
>>> Task local storage overcomes these issues and becomes a better option for
>>> these per-task data. Task local storage is only available to BPF_LSM. Now
>>> enable it for tracing programs.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>>> struct cfs_rq;
>>> struct fs_struct;
>>> @@ -1348,6 +1349,10 @@ struct task_struct {
>>> /* Used by LSM modules for access restriction: */
>>> void *security;
>>> #endif
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>>> + /* Used by BPF task local storage */
>>> + struct bpf_local_storage *bpf_storage;
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I remembered there is a discussion where KP initially wanted to put
>> bpf_local_storage in task_struct, but later on changed to
>> use in lsm as his use case mostly for lsm. Did anybody
>> remember the details of the discussion? Just want to be
>> sure what is the concern people has with putting bpf_local_storage
>> in task_struct and whether the use case presented by
>> Song will justify it.
>>
>
> If I recall correctly, the discussion was about inode local storage and
> it was decided to use the security blob since the use-case was only LSM
> programs. Since we now plan to use it in tracing,
> detangling the dependency from CONFIG_BPF_LSM
> sounds logical to me.
Sounds good. Thanks for explanation.
>
>
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
>>> unsigned long lowest_stack;
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>>> index d1249340fd6ba..ca995fdfa45e7 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
>>> @@ -8,9 +8,8 @@ CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init) $(cflags-nogcse-yy)
>>>
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o task_iter.o prog_iter.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o
>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o bpf_task_storage.o
>>> obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_inode_storage.o
>>> -obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_task_storage.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += disasm.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) += trampoline.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += btf.o
>> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists