From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, song@kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org, kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] bpf: provide a function to unregister struct_ops objects from consumers.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 15:15:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23f3dddd-b354-40a4-9b63-81d9e6649a3e@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f287c62f-628f-4201-ba34-03a7193212d8@linux.dev>
On 5/1/24 11:48, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 4/29/24 2:36 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
>> +/* Called from the subsystem that consume the struct_ops.
>> + *
>> + * The caller should protected this function by holding
>> rcu_read_lock() to
>> + * ensure "data" is valid. However, this function may unlock rcu
>> + * temporarily. The caller should not rely on the preceding
>> rcu_read_lock()
>> + * after returning from this function.
>
> This temporarily losing rcu_read_lock protection is error prone. The
> caller should do the inc_not_zero() instead if it is needed.
>
> I feel the approach in patch 1 and 3 is a little box-ed in by the
> earlier tcp-cc usage that tried to fit into the kernel module reg/unreg
> paradigm and hide as much bpf details as possible from tcp-cc. This is
> not necessarily true now for other subsystem which has bpf struct_ops
> from day one.
>
> The epoll detach notification is link only. Can this kernel side
> specific unreg be limited to struct_ops link only? During reg, a rcu
> protected link could be passed to the subsystem. That subsystem becomes
> a kernel user of the bpf link and it can call link_detach(link) to
> detach. Pseudo code:
>
> struct link __rcu *link;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> ref_link = rcu_dereference(link)
> if (ref_link)
> ref_link = bpf_link_inc_not_zero(ref_link);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ref_link)) {
> bpf_struct_ops_map_link_detach(ref_link);
> bpf_link_put(ref_link);
> }
Since not every struct_ops map has a link, we need a callback in additional
to ops->reg to register links with subsystems. If the callback is
ops->reg_link, struct_ops will call ops->reg_link if a subsystem provide
it and the map is registered through a link, or it should call ops->reg.
>
>> + *
>> + * Return true if unreg() success. If a call fails, it means some other
>> + * task has unrgistered or is unregistering the same object.
>> + */
>> +bool bpf_struct_ops_kvalue_unreg(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map =
>> + container_of(data, struct bpf_struct_ops_map, kvalue.data);
>> + enum bpf_struct_ops_state prev_state;
>> + struct bpf_struct_ops_link *st_link;
>> + bool ret = false;
>> +
>> + /* The st_map and st_link should be protected by rcu_read_lock(),
>> + * or they may have been free when we try to increase their
>> + * refcount.
>> + */
>> + if (IS_ERR(bpf_map_inc_not_zero(&st_map->map)))
>> + /* The map is already gone */
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + prev_state = cmpxchg(&st_map->kvalue.common.state,
>> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE,
>> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_TOBEFREE);
>> + if (prev_state == BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE) {
>> + st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(data);
>> + /* Pair with bpf_map_inc() for reg() */
>> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>> + /* Pair with bpf_map_inc_not_zero() above */
>> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> + if (prev_state != BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_READY)
>> + goto fail;
>> +
>> + /* With BPF_F_LINK */
>> +
>> + st_link = rcu_dereference(st_map->attached);
>> + if (!st_link || !bpf_link_inc_not_zero(&st_link->link))
>> + /* The map is on the way to unregister */
>> + goto fail;
>> +
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
>> +
>> + if (rcu_dereference_protected(st_link->map, true) != &st_map->map)
>> + /* The map should be unregistered already or on the way to
>> + * be unregistered.
>> + */
>> + goto fail_unlock;
>> +
>> + st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(data);
>> +
>> + map_attached_null(st_map);
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(st_link->map, NULL);
>> + /* Pair with bpf_map_get() in bpf_struct_ops_link_create() or
>> + * bpf_map_inc() in bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update().
>> + */
>> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>> +
>> + ret = true;
>> +
>> +fail_unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + bpf_link_put(&st_link->link);
>> +fail:
>> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_struct_ops_kvalue_unreg);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-01 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-29 21:36 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Notify user space when a struct_ops object is detached/unregisterd Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] bpf: add a pointer of the attached link to bpf_struct_ops_map Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 17:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-05-01 22:15 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: export bpf_link_inc_not_zero() Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] bpf: provide a function to unregister struct_ops objects from consumers Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 18:48 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-01 22:15 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2024-05-01 23:06 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-02 17:56 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-02 18:29 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-03 0:41 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-03 16:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-05-03 18:09 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-03 17:17 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf: detach a bpf_struct_ops_map from a link Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: support epoll from bpf struct_ops links Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 17:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-05-01 22:16 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-04-29 21:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] selftests/bpf: test detaching " Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-01 17:05 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-05-01 22:17 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-02 18:15 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-03 18:34 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-03 19:15 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-05-03 21:34 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-05-03 21:59 ` Martin KaFai Lau
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=23f3dddd-b354-40a4-9b63-81d9e6649a3e@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).