Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: add show_fdinfo handler for maps

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>]

On 15-11-23 11:12 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 20:09, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 15-11-23 10:03 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that is the reason why I mentioned it, so *the admin* can see
>>>> something is going on. Do you want to protect ebpf from root? Skynet? ;)
>>>
>>> correct. To me both root and non-root are users in the first place and
>>> they both shouldn't be allowed to misuse it.
>>>
>>>> In my opinion the kernel never should hide any information of the admin
>>>> if they are accessible easily. Sampling the number of failed updates to
>>>> a map or printing it via procfs/ebpffs seems to be just a matter of how
>>>> difficult it should be done. The map has a lock, so the number is fairly
>>>
>>> map_lookup is actually lockless. It's a critical path and should be
>>> as fast as possible. No extra stats just for debugging.
>>>
>>>> accurate. Sampling and plotting size of hash maps without having kprobes
>>>> installed would be a nice thing, because it reduces complexity and this
>>>> is nice to have.
>>>
>>> doing 'cat' from procfs is, of course, easier to use, but it's an extra
>>> code that permenanetly lives in memory, whereas kprobe+bpf is a run-time
>>> debugging.
>>
>> Hopefully not jumping in off-base here (I've read most the thread), but
>> what I've been doing is loading programs with debug ebpf code in them
>> to keep a statistics map(s) and then I read that from  userspace for
>> stats. It works pretty well and lets me compile out the debug code when
>> I want and also doesn't need kprobe at all. Also I can implement
>> sampling so that the debug code only runs every .01% or something like
>> that so it can be used in "real" systems. My "real" systems are just a
>> couple node test setup but it seems to be ok ;)
> 
> Ok, I am fine to wait until there is user demand.
> 
> Anyway, all you refer to is code you have under your control. I am
> worried about bpf code that is not under my control.
> 

Right, I've not gotten this far. To date everything I've been looking at
is owned by the admin. So probably some more use cases there I haven't
looked at.

> Thanks,
> Hannes
>