Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 20:26:15 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
To:     "Zaremba, Larysa" <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     brouer@...hat.com,
        "xdp-hints@...-project.net" <xdp-hints@...-project.net>,
        "Lobakin, Alexandr" <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 5/9] xdp: controlling XDP-hints from BPF-prog
 via helper



On 04/07/2022 13.00, Zaremba, Larysa wrote:
> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 29/06/2022 16.20, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> XDP BPF-prog's need a way to interact with the XDP-hints. This
>>>>> patch introduces a BPF-helper function, that allow XDP BPF-prog's
>>>>> to interact with the XDP-hints.
>>>>>
>>>>> BPF-prog can query if any XDP-hints have been setup and if this is
>>>>> compatible with the xdp_hints_common struct. If XDP-hints are
>>>>> available the BPF "origin" is returned (see enum
>>>>> xdp_hints_btf_origin) as BTF can come from different sources or
>>>>> origins e.g. vmlinux, module or local.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I quite understand what this origin is supposed to be
>>>> good for?
>>>
>>> Some background info on BTF is needed here: BTF_ID numbers are not
>>> globally unique identifiers, thus we need to know where it originate
>>> from, to make it unique (as we store this BTF_ID in XDP-hints).
>>>
>>> There is a connection between origin "vmlinux" and "module", which
>>> is that vmlinux will start at ID=1 and end at a max ID number.
>>> Modules refer to ID's in "vmlinux", and for this to work, they will
>>> shift their own numbering to start after ID=max-vmlinux-id.
>>>
>>> Origin "local" is for BTF information stored in the BPF-ELF object file.
>>> Their numbering starts at ID=1.  The use-case is that a BPF-prog
>>> want to extend the kernel drivers BTF-layout, and e.g. add a
>>> RX-timestamp like [1].  Then BPF-prog can check if it knows module's
>>> BTF_ID and then extend via bpf_xdp_adjust_meta, and update BTF_ID in
>>> XDP-hints and call the helper (I introduced) marking this as origin
>>> "local" for kernel to know this is no-longer origin "module".
>>
>> Right, I realise that :)
>>
>> My point was that just knowing "this is a BTF ID coming from a module"
>> is not terribly useful; you could already figure that out by just
>> looking at the ID and seeing if it's larger than the maximum ID in vmlinux BTF.
>>
>> Rather, what we need is a way to identify *which* module the BTF ID
>> comes from; and luckily, the kernel assigns a unique ID to every BTF
>> *object* as well as to each type ID within that object. These can be
>> dumped by bpftool:
>>
>> # bpftool btf
>> bpftool btf
>> [sudo] password for alrua:
>> 1: name [vmlinux]  size 4800187B
>> 2: name [serio]  size 2588B
>> 3: name [i8042]  size 11786B
>> 4: name [rng_core]  size 8184B
>> [...]
>> 2062: name <anon>  size 36965B
>> 	pids bpftool(547298)
>>
>> IDs 2-4 are module BTF objects, and that last one is the ID of a BTF
>> object loaded along with a BPF program by bpftool itself... So we *do*
>> in fact have a unique ID, by combining the BTF object ID with the type
>> ID; this is what Alexander is proposing to put into the xdp-hints
>> struct as well (combining the two IDs into a single u64).

Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand it now, and I agree
that we should extend/combining the two IDs into a single u64.

To Andrii, what is the right terminology when talking about these two
different BTF-ID's:

- BTF object ID and BTF type ID?

- Where BTF *object* ID are the IDs we see above from 'bpftool btf',
   where vmlinux=1 and module's IDs will start after 1.

- Where BTF *type* ID are the IDs the individual data "types" within a
   BTF "object" (e.g. struct xdp_hints_common that BPF-prog's can get
   via calling bpf_core_type_id_kernel()).


> That's correct, concept was previously discussed [1]. The ID of BTF object wasn't
> exposed in CO-RE allocations though, we've changed it in the first 4 patches.
> The main logic is in "libbpf: factor out BTF loading from load_module_btfs()"
> and "libbpf: patch module BTF ID into BPF insns".
> 
> We have a sample that wasn't included eventually, but can possibly
> give a general understanding of our approach [2].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEf4BzZO=7MKWfx2OCwEc+sKkfPZYzaELuobi4q5p1bOKk4AQQ@mail.gmail.com/
> [2] https://github.com/alobakin/linux/pull/16/files#diff-c5983904cbe0c280453d59e8a1eefb56c67018c38d5da0c1122abc86225fc7c9
> 
(appreciate the links)

I wonder how these BTF object IDs gets resolved for my "local" category?
(Origin "local" is for BTF information stored in the BPF-ELF object file)

Note: For "local" BTF type IDs BPF-prog resolve these via
bpf_core_type_id_local() (why I choose the term "local").

--Jesper

p.s. For unknown reasons lore.kernel.org did match Larysa's reply with 
the patchset thread here[3].

  [3] 
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/165643378969.449467.13237011812569188299.stgit@firesoul/#r

Powered by blists - more mailing lists