bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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);
> 

  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).