Re: bpf_st_ops and cgroups. Was: [PATCH v2 02/23] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops to cgroups

Roman Gushchin
2025-10-30T23:24:24Z

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:06 PM Roman Gushchin
> <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, let me summarize the options we discussed here:
>>
>> 1) Make the attachment details (e.g. cgroup_id) the part of struct ops
>> itself. The attachment is happening at the reg() time.
>>
>> +: It's convenient for complex stateful struct ops'es, because a
>> single entity represents a combination of code and data.
>> -: No way to attach a single struct ops to multiple entities.
>>
>> This approach is used by Tejun for per-cgroup sched_ext prototype.
>
> It's wrong. It should adopt bpf_struct_ops_link_create() approach
> and use attr->link_create.cgroup.relative_fd to attach.

This is basically what I have in v2, but Andrii and Song suggested that
I should use attr->link_create.target_fd instead.

I have a slight preference towards attr->link_create.cgroup.relative_fd
because it makes it clear that fd is a cgroup fd and potentially opens
a possibility to e.g. attach struct_ops to individual tasks and
cgroups, but I'm fine with both options.

Also, as Song pointed out, fd==0 is in theory a valid target, so instead of
using the "if (fd) {...}" check we might need a new flag. Idk if it
really makes sense to complicate the code for it.

Can we, please, decide on what's best here?