Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: Introduce process open coded iterator kfuncs

Chuyi Zhou
2023-09-20T12:21:06Z

在 2023/9/20 07:30, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> 在 2023/9/16 04:37, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:03 AM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>>> 在 2023/9/15 07:26, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:02 AM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds kfuncs bpf_iter_process_{new,next,destroy} which allow
>>>>>> creation and manipulation of struct bpf_iter_process in open-coded iterator
>>>>>> style. BPF programs can use these kfuncs or through bpf_for_each macro to
>>>>>> iterate all processes in the system.
>>>>>>
>> [...cut...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Few high level thoughts. I think it would be good to follow
>>>>> SEC("iter/task") naming and approach. Open-coded iterators in many
>>>>> ways are in-kernel counterpart to iterator programs, so keeping them
>>>>> close enough within reason is useful for knowledge transfer.
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC("iter/task") allows to:
>>>>> a) iterate all threads in the system
>>>>> b) iterate all threads for a given TGID
>>>>> c) it also allows to "iterate" a single thread or process, but that's
>>>>> a bit less relevant for in-kernel iterator, but we can still support
>>>>> them, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if it supports iterating all processes (as in group
>>>>> leaders of each task group) in the system, but if it's possible I
>>>>> think we should support it at least for open-coded iterator, seems
>>>>> like a very useful functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to that end, let's design a small set of input arguments for
>>>>> bpf_iter_process_new() that would allow to specify this as flags +
>>>>> either (optional) struct task_struct * pointer to represent
>>>>> task/process or PID/TGID.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another concern from Alexei was the readability of the API of open-coded
>>>> in BPF Program[1].
>>>>
>>>> bpf_for_each(task, curr) is straightforward. Users can easily understand
>>>> that this API does the same thing as 'for_each_process' in kernel.
>>>
>>> In general, users might have no idea about for_each_process macro in
>>> the kernel, so I don't find this particular argument very convincing.
>>>
>>> We can add a separate set of iterator kfuncs for every useful
>>> combination of conditions, of course, but it's a double-edged sword.
>>> Needing to use a different iterator just to specify a different
>>> direction of cgroup iteration (from the example you referred in [1])
>>> also means that it's now harder to write some generic function that
>>> needs to do something for all cgroups matching some criteria where the
>>> order might be coming as an argument.
>>>
>>> Similarly for task iterators. It's not hard to imagine some processing
>>> that can be equivalently done per thread or per process in the system,
>>> or on each thread of the process, depending on some conditions or
>>> external configuration. Having to do three different
>>> bpf_for_each(task_xxx, task, ...) for this seems suboptimal. If the
>>> nature of the thing that is iterated over is the same, and it's just a
>>> different set of filters to specify which subset of those items should
>>> be iterated, I think it's better to try to stick to the same iterator
>>> with few simple arguments. IMO, of course, there is no objectively
>>> best approach.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if we keep the approach of SEC("iter/task")
>>>>
>>>> enum ITER_ITEM {
>>>> ITER_TASK,
>>>> ITER_THREAD,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_task_new(struct bpf_iter_process *it, struct
>>>> task_struct *group_task, enum ITER_ITEM type)
>>>>
>>>> the API have to chang:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bpf_for_each(task, curr, NULL, ITERATE_TASK) // iterate all process in
>>>> the system
>>>> bpf_for_each(task, curr, group_leader, ITERATE_THREAD) // iterate all
>>>> thread of group_leader
>>>> bpf_for_each(task, curr, NULL, ITERATE_THREAD) //iterate all threads of
>>>> all the process in the system
>>>>
>>>> Useres may guess what are this API actually doing....
>>>
>>> I'd expect users to consult documentation before trying to use an
>>> unfamiliar cutting-edge functionality. So let's try to keep
>>> documentation clear and up to the point. Extra flag argument doesn't
>>> seem to be a big deal.
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion!
>>
>> Before we begin working on the next version, I have outlined a detailed
>> API design here:
>>
>> 1.task_iter
>>
>> It will be used to iterate process/threads like SEC("iter/task"). Here
>> we should better to follow the naming and approach SEC("iter/task"):
>>
>> enum {
>> ITERATE_PROCESS,
>> ITERATE_THREAD,
>> }
>>
>> __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_task_new(struct bpf_iter_task *it, struct
>> task_struct *task, int flag);
>>
>> If we want to iterate all processes in the system, the iteration will
>> start from the *task* which is passed from user.(since process in the
>> system are connected through a linked list)
>
> but will go through all of them anyways, right? it's kind of
> surprising from usability standpoint to have to pass some task_struct
> to iterate all of them, tbh. I wonder if it's hard to adjust kfunc
> validation to allow "nullable" pointers? We can look at that
> separately, of course.
>

Yes, little subtle here. When we want to iterate threads of a task, we
may want the verifier to ensure the *task* is a valid pointer, which
would require KF_TRUSTED_ARGS. However, when we want to iterate all
process/threads in the system, we want to accept a null pointer.

Anyway, I will try to explore a workaround in the verifier here.

Thanks.