From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: thinker.li@gmail.com
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
ast@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v3 03/11] bpf: add register and unregister functions for struct_ops.
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:07:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75489013-0364-a91a-66d8-2d600a159246@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230920155923.151136-4-thinker.li@gmail.com>
On 9/20/23 8:59 AM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>
> Provide registration functions to add/remove struct_ops types.
>
> Currently, it does linear search to find a struct_ops type. It should be
> fine for now since we don't have many struct_ops types.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf.h | 9 +++++++++
> include/linux/btf.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 11 -----------
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 30063a760b5a..67554f2f81b7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1634,6 +1634,11 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops {
> u32 value_id;
> };
>
> +struct bpf_struct_ops_mod {
> + struct module *owner;
After reading patch 5, I don't think this new 'struct bpf_struct_ops_mod' is needed.
> + struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops;
In patch 5, 'struct module *owner' has been added to 'bpf_struct_ops'. st_ops
itself should already have the 'owner'.
> +};
> +
> #if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> #define BPF_MODULE_OWNER ((void *)((0xeB9FUL << 2) + POISON_POINTER_DELTA))
> const struct bpf_struct_ops *bpf_struct_ops_find(u32 type_id);
> @@ -3205,4 +3210,8 @@ static inline bool bpf_is_subprog(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> return prog->aux->func_idx != 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> +int register_bpf_struct_ops(struct bpf_struct_ops_mod *mod);
This should be register_bpf_struct_ops(struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops) instead.
> +#endif
> +
> #endif /* _LINUX_BPF_H */
> diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
> index 5fabe23aedd2..8d50e46b21bc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
>
> #define BTF_TYPE_EMIT(type) ((void)(type *)0)
> +#define BTF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE_EMIT(type) {((void)(struct type *)0); \
> + ((void)(struct bpf_struct_ops_##type *)0); }
> #define BTF_TYPE_EMIT_ENUM(enum_val) ((void)enum_val)
>
> /* These need to be macros, as the expressions are used in assembler input */
> @@ -200,6 +202,7 @@ u32 btf_obj_id(const struct btf *btf);
> bool btf_is_kernel(const struct btf *btf);
> bool btf_is_module(const struct btf *btf);
> struct module *btf_try_get_module(const struct btf *btf);
> +struct btf *btf_get_module_btf(const struct module *module);
> u32 btf_nr_types(const struct btf *btf);
> bool btf_member_is_reg_int(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *s,
> const struct btf_member *m,
> @@ -580,4 +583,28 @@ int btf_add_struct_ops(struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops,
> const struct bpf_struct_ops **
> btf_get_struct_ops(struct btf *btf, u32 *ret_cnt);
>
> +enum bpf_struct_ops_state {
> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INIT,
> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE,
> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_TOBEFREE,
> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_READY,
> +};
> +
> +#define BPF_STRUCT_OPS_COMMON_VALUE \
> + refcount_t refcnt; \
> + enum bpf_struct_ops_state state
> +
> +/* bpf_struct_ops_##_name (e.g. bpf_struct_ops_tcp_congestion_ops) is
> + * the map's value exposed to the userspace and its btf-type-id is
> + * stored at the map->btf_vmlinux_value_type_id.
> + *
> + */
> +#define DEFINE_STRUCT_OPS_VALUE_TYPE(_name) \
> +extern struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_##_name; \
> + \
> +struct bpf_struct_ops_##_name { \
> + BPF_STRUCT_OPS_COMMON_VALUE; \
> + struct _name data ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; \
> +};
> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index 627cf1ea840a..cd688e9033b5 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -13,17 +13,6 @@
> #include <linux/btf_ids.h>
> #include <linux/rcupdate_wait.h>
>
> -enum bpf_struct_ops_state {
> - BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INIT,
> - BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE,
> - BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_TOBEFREE,
> - BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_READY,
> -};
> -
> -#define BPF_STRUCT_OPS_COMMON_VALUE \
> - refcount_t refcnt; \
> - enum bpf_struct_ops_state state
> -
> struct bpf_struct_ops_value {
> BPF_STRUCT_OPS_COMMON_VALUE;
> char data[] ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 3fb9964f8672..73d19ef99306 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -7532,7 +7532,7 @@ struct module *btf_try_get_module(const struct btf *btf)
> /* Returns struct btf corresponding to the struct module.
> * This function can return NULL or ERR_PTR.
> */
> -static struct btf *btf_get_module_btf(const struct module *module)
> +struct btf *btf_get_module_btf(const struct module *module)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> struct btf_module *btf_mod, *tmp;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-25 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-20 15:59 [RFC bpf-next v3 00/11] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 01/11] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function thinker.li
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 02/11] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf thinker.li
2023-09-25 21:10 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-25 21:45 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 03/11] bpf: add register and unregister functions for struct_ops thinker.li
2023-09-25 23:07 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2023-09-25 23:13 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-25 23:31 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-26 0:19 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 04/11] bpf: attach a module BTF to a bpf_struct_ops thinker.li
2023-09-25 22:57 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-25 23:25 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 05/11] bpf: hold module for bpf_struct_ops_map thinker.li
2023-09-25 23:23 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-25 23:42 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 06/11] bpf: validate value_type thinker.li
2023-09-26 1:03 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-27 20:27 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 07/11] bpf, net: switch to storing struct_ops in btf thinker.li
2023-09-26 0:02 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-26 0:18 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 08/11] bpf: pass attached BTF to find correct type info of struct_ops progs thinker.li
2023-09-25 22:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-09-25 23:50 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-26 0:24 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-26 0:58 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 09/11] libbpf: Find correct module BTFs for struct_ops maps and progs thinker.li
2023-09-25 23:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-09-26 0:12 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 10/11] bpf: export btf_ctx_access to modules thinker.li
2023-09-20 15:59 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 11/11] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops() thinker.li
2023-09-26 1:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-26 1:33 ` [RFC bpf-next v3 00/11] Registrating struct_ops types from modules 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=75489013-0364-a91a-66d8-2d600a159246@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--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