Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: ringbuf: Support consuming BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF from prog

["Daniel Xu" <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>]

[cc Jesper]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:39:55PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 4:44 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:21:04PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:16 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, at 2:07 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:41:41PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:36 AM Alexei Starovoitov
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Also, Daniel, can you please make sure that dynptr we return for each
>> > > > >> sample is read-only? We shouldn't let consumer BPF program ability to
>> > > > >> corrupt ringbuf record headers (accidentally or otherwise).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sure.
>> > > >
>> > > > So the sample is not read-only. But I think prog is prevented from messing
>> > > > with header regardless.
>> > > >
>> > > > __bpf_user_ringbuf_peek() returns sample past the header:
>> > > >
>> > > >         *sample = (void *)((uintptr_t)rb->data +
>> > > >                            (uintptr_t)((cons_pos + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ) & rb->mask));
>> > > >
>> > > > dynptr is initialized with the above ptr:
>> > > >
>> > > >         bpf_dynptr_init(&dynptr, sample, BPF_DYNPTR_TYPE_LOCAL, 0, size);
>> > > >
>> > > > So I don't think there's a way for the prog to access the header thru the dynptr.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > By "header" I mean 8 bytes that precede each submitted ringbuf record.
>> > > That header is part of ringbuf data area. Given user space can set
>> > > consumer_pos to arbitrary value, kernel can return arbitrary part of
>> > > ringbuf data area, including that 8 byte header. If that data is
>> > > writable, it's easy to screw up that header and crash another BPF
>> > > program that reserves/submits a new record. User space can only read
>> > > data area for BPF ringbuf, and so we rely heavily on a tight control
>> > > of who can write what into those 8 bytes.
>> >
>> > Ah, ok. I think I understand.
>> >
>> > Given this and your other comments about rb->busy, what about enforcing
>> > bpf_user_ringbuf_drain() NAND mmap? I think the use cases here are
>> > different enough where this makes sense.
>> 
>> You mean disabling user-space mmap()? TBH, I'd like to understand the
>> use case first before we make such decisions. Maybe what you need is
>> not really a BPF ringbuf? Can you give us a bit more details on what
>> you are trying to achieve?
>
> BPF cpumap, under the hood, has one MPSC ring buffer (ptr_ring) for each
> entry in the cpumap. When a prog redirects to an entry in the cpumap,
> the machinery queues up the xdp frame onto the destination CPU ptr_ring.
> This can occur on any cpu, thus multi-producer. On processing side,
> there is only the kthread created by the cpumap entry and bound to the
> specific cpu that is consuming entries. So single consumer.
>
> Goal is to track the latency overhead added from ptr_ring and the
> kthread (versus softirq where is less overhead). Ideally we want p50,
> p90, p95, p99 percentiles.
>
> To do this, we need to track every single entry enqueue time as well as
> dequeue time - events that occur in the tail are quite important.
>
> Since ptr_ring is also a ring buffer, I thought it would be easy,
> reliable, and fast to just create a "shadow" ring buffer. Every time
> producer enqueues entries, I'd enqueue the same number of current
> timestamp onto shadow RB. Same thing on consumer side, except dequeue
> and calculate timestamp delta.
>
> I was originally planning on writing my own lockless ring buffer in pure
> BPF (b/c spinlocks cannot be used w/ tracepoints yet) but was hoping I
> could avoid that with this patch.

[...]

Alternatively, could add a u64 timestamp to xdp_frame, which makes all
this tracking inline (and thus more reliable). But I'm not sure how precious
the space in that struct is - I see some references online saying most drivers
save 128B headroom. I also see:

        #define XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM 256

Could probably amortize the timestamp read by setting it in
bq_flush_to_queue().