From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@meta.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] bpf: Register and unregister a struct_ops by their bpf_links.
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:53:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y+xJJLAhPBzboOvo@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230214221718.503964-4-kuifeng@meta.com>
On 02/14, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> Registration via bpf_links ensures a uniform behavior, just like other
> BPF programs. BPF struct_ops were registered/unregistered when
> updating/deleting their values. Only the maps of struct_ops having
> the BPF_F_LINK flag are allowed to back a bpf_link.
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@meta.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++
> 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 1e6cdd0f355d..48d8b3058aa1 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1267,6 +1267,9 @@ enum {
> /* Create a map that is suitable to be an inner map with dynamic max
> entries */
> BPF_F_INNER_MAP = (1U << 12),
> +
> +/* Create a map that will be registered/unregesitered by the backed
> bpf_link */
> + BPF_F_LINK = (1U << 13),
> };
> /* Flags for BPF_PROG_QUERY. */
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index 621c8e24481a..d16ca06cf09a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct
> bpf_map *map, void *key,
> mutex_lock(&st_map->lock);
> - if (kvalue->state != BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INIT) {
> + if (kvalue->state != BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INIT ||
> refcount_read(&kvalue->refcnt)) {
> err = -EBUSY;
> goto unlock;
> }
> @@ -491,6 +491,12 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct
> bpf_map *map, void *key,
> *(unsigned long *)(udata + moff) = prog->aux->id;
> }
> + if (st_map->map.map_flags & BPF_F_LINK) {
> + /* Let bpf_link handle registration & unregistration. */
> + smp_store_release(&kvalue->state, BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE);
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> refcount_set(&kvalue->refcnt, 1);
> bpf_map_inc(map);
[..]
> @@ -522,6 +528,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct
> bpf_map *map, void *key,
> kfree(tlinks);
> mutex_unlock(&st_map->lock);
> return err;
> +
> }
> static int bpf_struct_ops_map_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
Seems like a left over hunk?
> @@ -535,6 +542,8 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_delete_elem(struct
> bpf_map *map, void *key)
> BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_TOBEFREE);
> switch (prev_state) {
> case BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE:
> + if (st_map->map.map_flags & BPF_F_LINK)
> + return 0;
> st_map->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data);
> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&st_map->kvalue.refcnt))
> bpf_map_put(map);
> @@ -585,7 +594,7 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_free(struct bpf_map
> *map)
> static int bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc_check(union bpf_attr *attr)
> {
> if (attr->key_size != sizeof(unsigned int) || attr->max_entries != 1 ||
> - attr->map_flags || !attr->btf_vmlinux_value_type_id)
> + (attr->map_flags & ~BPF_F_LINK) || !attr->btf_vmlinux_value_type_id)
> return -EINVAL;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -638,6 +647,8 @@ static struct bpf_map *bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc(union
> bpf_attr *attr)
> set_vm_flush_reset_perms(st_map->image);
> bpf_map_init_from_attr(map, attr);
[..]
> + map->map_flags |= attr->map_flags & BPF_F_LINK;
You seem to have the following check above:
if (.... (attr->map_flags & ~BPF_F_LINK) ...) return -EINVAL;
And here you do:
map->map_flags |= attr->map_flags & BPF_F_LINK;
So maybe we can simplify to:
map->map_flags |= attr->map_flags;
?
> +
> return map;
> }
> @@ -699,10 +710,25 @@ void bpf_struct_ops_put(const void *kdata)
> }
> }
> +static void bpf_struct_ops_kvalue_put(struct bpf_struct_ops_value
> *kvalue)
> +{
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> +
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&kvalue->refcnt)) {
> + st_map = container_of(kvalue, struct bpf_struct_ops_map,
> + kvalue);
> + bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void bpf_struct_ops_map_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> {
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> +
> if (link->map) {
> - bpf_map_put(link->map);
> + st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)link->map;
> + st_map->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data);
> + bpf_struct_ops_kvalue_put(&st_map->kvalue);
> link->map = NULL;
> }
> }
> @@ -735,13 +761,15 @@ static const struct bpf_link_ops
> bpf_struct_ops_map_lops = {
> int link_create_struct_ops_map(union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr)
> {
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
> struct bpf_link_primer link_primer;
> + struct bpf_struct_ops_value *kvalue;
> struct bpf_map *map;
> struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
> int err;
> map = bpf_map_get(attr->link_create.prog_fd);
> - if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS)
> + if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS || !(map->map_flags &
> BPF_F_LINK))
> return -EINVAL;
> link = kzalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_USER);
> @@ -752,6 +780,29 @@ int link_create_struct_ops_map(union bpf_attr *attr,
> bpfptr_t uattr)
> bpf_link_init(link, BPF_LINK_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS, &bpf_struct_ops_map_lops,
> NULL);
> link->map = map;
[..]
> + if (map->map_flags & BPF_F_LINK) {
We seem to bail out above when we don't have BPF_F_LINK flags above?
if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS || !(map->map_flags &
BPF_F_LINK))
return -EINVAL;
So why check this 'if (map->map_flags & BPF_F_LINK)' condition here?
> + st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)map;
> + kvalue = (struct bpf_struct_ops_value *)&st_map->kvalue;
> +
> + if (kvalue->state != BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INUSE ||
> + refcount_read(&kvalue->refcnt) != 0) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_out;
> + }
> +
> + refcount_set(&kvalue->refcnt, 1);
> +
> + set_memory_rox((long)st_map->image, 1);
> + err = st_map->st_ops->reg(kvalue->data);
> + if (err) {
> + refcount_set(&kvalue->refcnt, 0);
> +
> + set_memory_nx((long)st_map->image, 1);
> + set_memory_rw((long)st_map->image, 1);
> + goto err_out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> err = bpf_link_prime(link, &link_primer);
> if (err)
> goto err_out;
> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 1e6cdd0f355d..48d8b3058aa1 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1267,6 +1267,9 @@ enum {
> /* Create a map that is suitable to be an inner map with dynamic max
> entries */
> BPF_F_INNER_MAP = (1U << 12),
> +
> +/* Create a map that will be registered/unregesitered by the backed
> bpf_link */
> + BPF_F_LINK = (1U << 13),
> };
> /* Flags for BPF_PROG_QUERY. */
> --
> 2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-15 2:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-14 22:17 [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Transit between BPF TCP congestion controls Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/7] bpf: Create links for BPF struct_ops maps Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 0:26 ` kernel test robot
2023-02-15 2:39 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-15 18:04 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 18:44 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-15 20:24 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 21:28 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-15 20:30 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-15 20:55 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 22:58 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-16 17:59 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] net: Update an existing TCP congestion control algorithm Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 2:43 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-15 18:15 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] bpf: Register and unregister a struct_ops by their bpf_links Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 2:53 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2023-02-15 18:29 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 0:37 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-16 16:42 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 22:38 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-17 22:17 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] libbpf: Create a bpf_link in bpf_map__attach_struct_ops() Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 2:58 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-15 18:44 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-15 18:48 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-15 22:20 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 22:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-02-16 22:59 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-18 0:05 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-18 1:08 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/7] bpf: Update the struct_ops of a bpf_link Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 1:02 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-16 19:17 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 19:40 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] libbpf: Update a bpf_link with another struct_ops Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 22:48 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-02-18 0:22 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-18 1:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-02-21 22:20 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-14 22:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] selftests/bpf: Test switching TCP Congestion Control algorithms Kui-Feng Lee
2023-02-16 22:50 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-02-18 0:23 ` Kui-Feng Lee
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=Y+xJJLAhPBzboOvo@google.com \
--to=sdf@google.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 \
/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