Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Introduce task_vma open-coded iterator kfuncs

Stanislav Fomichev
2023-08-11T17:03:59Z

On 08/11, David Marchevsky wrote:
> On 8/10/23 5:57 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 08/10, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
> >> This patch adds kfuncs bpf_iter_task_vma_{new,next,destroy} which allow
> >> creation and manipulation of struct bpf_iter_task_vma in open-coded
> >> iterator style. BPF programs can use these kfuncs directly or through
> >> bpf_for_each macro for natural-looking iteration of all task vmas.
> >>
> >> The implementation borrows heavily from bpf_find_vma helper's locking -
> >> differing only in that it holds the mmap_read lock for all iterations
> >> while the helper only executes its provided callback on a maximum of 1
> >> vma. Aside from locking, struct vma_iterator and vma_next do all the
> >> heavy lifting.
> >>
> >> The newly-added struct bpf_iter_task_vma has a name collision with a
> >> selftest for the seq_file task_vma iter's bpf skel, so the selftests/bpf/progs
> >> file is renamed in order to avoid the collision.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
> >> Cc: Nathan Slingerland <slinger@meta.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 ++
> >> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 +
> >> kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
> >> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 ++
> >> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 8 +++
> >> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c | 26 ++++-----
> >> ...f_iter_task_vma.c => bpf_iter_task_vmas.c} | 0
> >> 7 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >> rename tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/{bpf_iter_task_vma.c => bpf_iter_task_vmas.c} (100%)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >> index d21deb46f49f..c4a65968f9f5 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >> @@ -7291,4 +7291,9 @@ struct bpf_iter_num {
> >> __u64 __opaque[1];
> >> } __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> >>
> >> +struct bpf_iter_task_vma {
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> + __u64 __opaque[9]; /* See bpf_iter_num comment above */
> >> + char __opaque_c[3];
> >
> > Everything in the series makes sense, but this part is a big confusing
> > when reading without too much context. If you're gonna do a respin, maybe:
> >
> > - __opaque_c[8*9+3] (or whatever the size is)? any reason for separate
> > __u64 + char?
>
> IIUC this is because BTF generation doesn't pick up __attribute__((aligned(8))),
> so if a vmlinux.h is generated via 'bpftool btf dump file vmlinux format c' and
> this struct only contains chars, it won't have the correct alignment.
>
> I'm not sure if the bitfield approach taken by bpf_{list,rb}_node similar has
> the same effect. Some quick googling indicates that if it does, it's probably
> not in the C standard.

Ugh, the alignment, right..

> But yeah, I agree that it's ugly. While we're on the topic, WDYT about my
> comment in the cover letter about this struct (copied here for convenience):
>
> * The struct vma_iterator wrapped by struct bpf_iter_task_vma itself wraps
> struct ma_state. Because we need the entire struct, not a ptr, changes to
> either struct vma_iterator or struct ma_state will necessitate changing the
> opaque struct bpf_iter_task_vma to account for the new size. This feels a
> bit brittle. We could instead use bpf_mem_alloc to allocate a struct
> vma_iterator in bpf_iter_task_vma_new and have struct bpf_iter_task_vma
> point to that, but that's not quite equivalent as BPF progs will usually
> use the stack for this struct via bpf_for_each. Went with the simpler route
> for now.

LGTM! (assuming you'll keep non-pointer; looking at that other thread
where Yonghong suggests to go with the ptr...)

> > - maybe worth adding something like /* Opaque representation of
> > bpf_iter_task_vma_kern; see bpf_iter_num comment above */.
> > that bpf_iter_task_vma<>bpf_iter_task_vma_kern wasn't super apparent
> > until I got to the BUG_ON part
>
> It feels weird to refer to the non-UAPI _kern struct in uapi header. Maybe
> better to add a comment to the _kern struct referring to this one? I don't
> feel strongly either way, though.

Yeah, good point, let's keep as is.