From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: debug annotations for bpf progs. Was: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: preserve command of the process that loaded the program
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:28:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191017162843.GB2090@mini-arch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191016140112.GF21367@pc-63.home>
On 10/16, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 02:21:50PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me> wrote:
> > > On 10/11, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Even though we have the pointer to user_struct and can recover
> > > > > uid of the user who has created the program, it usually contains
> > > > > 0 (root) which is not very informative. Let's store the comm of the
> > > > > calling process and export it via bpf_prog_info. This should help
> > > > > answer the question "which process loaded this particular program".
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > > > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
> > > > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > index 5b9d22338606..b03ea396afe5 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > @@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
> > > > > struct work_struct work;
> > > > > struct rcu_head rcu;
> > > > > };
> > > > > + char created_by_comm[BPF_CREATED_COMM_LEN];
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > struct bpf_array {
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > index a65c3b0c6935..4e883ecbba1e 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > @@ -326,6 +326,7 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
> > > > > #define BPF_F_NUMA_NODE (1U << 2)
> > > > >
> > > > > #define BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN 16U
> > > > > +#define BPF_CREATED_COMM_LEN 16U
> > > >
> > > > Nack.
> > > > 16 bytes is going to be useless.
> > > > We found it the hard way with prog_name.
> > > > If you want to embed additional debug information
> > > > please use BTF for that.
> > > BTF was my natural choice initially, but then I saw created_by_uid and
> > > thought created_by_comm might have a chance :-)
> > >
> > > To clarify, by BTF you mean creating some unused global variable
> > > and use its name as the debugging info? Or there is some better way?
> >
> > I was thinking about adding new section to .btf.ext with this extra data,
> > but global variable is a better idea indeed.
> > We'd need to standardize such variables names, so that
> > bpftool can parse and print it while doing 'bpftool prog show'.
>
> +1, much better indeed.
>
> > We see more and more cases where services use more than
> > one program in single .c file to accomplish their goals.
> > Tying such debug info (like 'created_by_comm') to each program
> > individually isn't quite right.
> > In that sense global variables are better, since they cover the
> > whole .c file.
> > Beyond 'created_by_comm' there are others things that people
> > will likely want to know.
> > Like which version of llvm was used to compile this .o file.
> > Which unix user name compiled it.
> > The name of service/daemon that will be using this .o
> > and so on.
>
> Also latest git sha of the source repo, for example.
>
> > May be some standard prefix to such global variables will do?
> > Like "bpftool prog show" can scan global data for
> > "__annotate_#name" and print both name and string contents ?
> > For folks who regularly ssh into servers to debug bpf progs
> > that will help a lot.
> > May be some annotations llvm can automatically add to .o.
> > Thoughts?
>
> One thing that might be less clear is how information such as comm
> or comm args would be stuffed into BTF here, but perhaps these two
> wouldn't necessarily need to be part of it since these can be retrieved
> today (as in: "which program is currently holding a reference via fd
> to a certain prog/map"). For that bpftool could simply walk procfs
> once and correlate via fdinfo on unique prog/map id, so we could list
> comms in the dump which should be trivial to add:
>
> # ls -la /proc/30651/fd/10
> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Oct 16 15:53 /proc/30651/fd/10 -> anon_inode:bpf-map
> # cat /proc/30651/fdinfo/10
> pos: 0
> flags: 02000002
> mnt_id: 15
> map_type: 1
> key_size: 24
> value_size: 12
> max_entries: 65536
> map_flags: 0x0
> memlock: 6819840
> map_id: 384 <---
> frozen: 0
> # cat /proc/30651/comm
> cilium-agent
> # cat /proc/30651/cmdline
> ./daemon/cilium-agent--ipv4-range10.11.0.0/16[...]--enable-node-port=true
>
> ... and similar for progs. Getting the cmdline from kernel side seems
> rather annoying from looking into what detour procfs needs to perform.
>
> But aside from these, such annotations via BTF would be really useful.
Tried to do the following:
1. Add: static volatile const char __annotate_source1[] = __FILE__;
to test_rdonly_maps.c and I think it got optimized away :-/
At least I don't see it in the 'bpftool btf dump' output.
2. Add: char __annotate_source2[] SEC(".meta") = __FILE__;
to test_rdonly_maps.c and do all the required plumbing in libbpf
to treat .meta like .rodata. I think it works, but the map
disappears after bpftool exits because this data is not referenced
in the prog and the refcount drops to zero :-(
Am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-17 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-11 16:21 [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: preserve command of the process that loaded the program Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-11 16:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] tools/bpf: sync bpf.h Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-11 16:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] bpftool: print the comm of the process that loaded the program Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-11 20:19 ` Martin Lau
2019-10-11 20:37 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-11 21:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2019-10-11 21:30 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-12 0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: preserve command " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-12 0:38 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-15 21:21 ` debug annotations for bpf progs. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-15 22:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-15 22:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-15 22:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-15 22:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-15 22:26 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-10-16 14:01 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-10-17 16:28 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2019-10-18 6:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191017162843.GB2090@mini-arch \
--to=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.