All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@linux.dev>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	dsahern@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
	haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/9] bpf: add the kfunc bpf_fsession_cookie
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:31:05 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2334439.iZASKD2KPV@7940hx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bza=Cuu-3LZs7XuK-d7FLKAU8ppkLneiuLqDejzfweHqqA@mail.gmail.com>

On 2025/12/19 08:55 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> write:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 1:55 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Implement session cookie for fsession. In order to limit the stack usage,
> > we make 4 as the maximum of the cookie count.
> >
> > The offset of the current cookie is stored in the
> > "(ctx[-1] >> BPF_TRAMP_M_COOKIE) & 0xFF". Therefore, we can get the
> > session cookie with ctx[-offset].
> >
> > The stack will look like this:
> >
> >   return value  -> 8 bytes
> >   argN          -> 8 bytes
> >   ...
> >   arg1          -> 8 bytes
> >   nr_args       -> 8 bytes
> >   ip(optional)  -> 8 bytes
> >   cookie2       -> 8 bytes
> >   cookie1       -> 8 bytes
> >
> > Inline the bpf_fsession_cookie() in the verifer too.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dongml2@chinatelecom.cn>
> > ---
> > v4:
> > - limit the maximum of the cookie count to 4
> > - store the session cookies before nr_regs in stack
> > ---
> >  include/linux/bpf.h      | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/bpf/trampoline.c  | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c    | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c |  9 +++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > index d165ace5cc9b..0f35c6ab538c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -1215,6 +1215,7 @@ enum {
> >
> >  #define BPF_TRAMP_M_NR_ARGS    0
> >  #define BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN  8
> > +#define BPF_TRAMP_M_COOKIE     9
> >
> >  struct bpf_tramp_links {
> >         struct bpf_tramp_link *links[BPF_MAX_TRAMP_LINKS];
> > @@ -1318,6 +1319,7 @@ struct bpf_trampoline {
> >         struct mutex mutex;
> >         refcount_t refcnt;
> >         u32 flags;
> > +       int cookie_cnt;
> 
> can't you just count this each time you need to know instead of
> keeping track of this? it's not that expensive and won't happen that
> frequently (and we keep lock on trampoline, so it's also safe and
> race-free to count)

There is a for-loop below that use the "cookie_cnt" to clear all the
cookie to zero. We limited the maximum of cookie_cnt to 4, so
I guess we can count it directly there. I'll change it in the
next version.

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

> 
> >         u64 key;
> >         struct {
> >                 struct btf_func_model model;
> > @@ -1762,6 +1764,7 @@ struct bpf_prog {
> >                                 enforce_expected_attach_type:1, /* Enforce expected_attach_type checking at attach time */
> >                                 call_get_stack:1, /* Do we call bpf_get_stack() or bpf_get_stackid() */
> >                                 call_get_func_ip:1, /* Do we call get_func_ip() */
> > +                               call_session_cookie:1, /* Do we call bpf_fsession_cookie() */
> >                                 tstamp_type_access:1, /* Accessed __sk_buff->tstamp_type */
> >                                 sleepable:1;    /* BPF program is sleepable */
> >         enum bpf_prog_type      type;           /* Type of BPF program */
> 
> [...]
> 





  reply	other threads:[~2025-12-19  1:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-17  9:54 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/9] bpf: tracing session supporting Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/9] bpf: add tracing session support Menglong Dong
2025-12-19  0:55   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-19  1:24     ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/9] bpf: use last 8-bits for the nr_args in trampoline Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/9] bpf: add the kfunc bpf_fsession_is_return Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/9] bpf: add the kfunc bpf_fsession_cookie Menglong Dong
2025-12-19  0:55   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-19  1:31     ` Menglong Dong [this message]
2025-12-19 12:01       ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/9] bpf,x86: introduce emit_st_r0_imm64() for trampoline Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/9] bpf,x86: add tracing session supporting for x86_64 Menglong Dong
2025-12-19  0:55   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-19  1:41     ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-19 16:56       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/9] libbpf: add support for tracing session Menglong Dong
2025-12-19  0:55   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-19  1:42     ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 8/9] selftests/bpf: add testcases " Menglong Dong
2025-12-17 10:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-12-17 11:42     ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-17  9:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 9/9] selftests/bpf: test fsession mixed with fentry and fexit Menglong Dong
2025-12-17 10:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-12-17 10:37     ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-19  0:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/9] bpf: tracing session supporting Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-19  1:18   ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-19 16:55     ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-12-20  1:12       ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-20  9:01         ` Menglong Dong
2025-12-20 12:22           ` Menglong Dong

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=2334439.iZASKD2KPV@7940hx \
    --to=menglong.dong@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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.