Re: [PATCH 3/5] bpf: Add bpf_user_ringbuf_drain() helper

Andrii Nakryiko
2022-08-16T23:00:14Z

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:14 PM David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > index a341f877b230..ca125648d7fd 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > @@ -5332,6 +5332,13 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > > > > * **-EACCES** if the SYN cookie is not valid.
> > > > > *
> > > > > * **-EPROTONOSUPPORT** if CONFIG_IPV6 is not builtin.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * long bpf_user_ringbuf_drain(struct bpf_map *map, void *callback_fn, void *ctx, u64 flags)
> > > > > + * Description
> > > > > + * Drain samples from the specified user ringbuffer, and invoke the
> > > > > + * provided callback for each such sample.
> > > >
> > > > please specify what's the expected signature of callback_fn
> > >
> > > Will do, unfortunatley we're inconsistent in doing this in other helper
> > > functions, so it wasn't clear from context.
> >
> > That means we missed it for other helpers. The idea was to always
> > specify expected signature in UAPI comment, ideally we fix all the
> > missing cases.
>
> Agreed -- I'll take care of that as a follow-on patch-set.
>
> > > Agreed, I'll add a check and selftest for this.
> >
> > Yep, consider also adding few tests where user-space intentionally
> > breaks the contract to make sure that kernel stays intact (if you
> > already did that, apologies, I haven't looked at selftests much).
>
> The only negative tests I currently have from user-space are verifying
> that mapping permissions are correctly enforced. Happy to add some more
> that tests boundaries for other parts of the API -- I agree that's both
> useful and prudent.
>
> > > > > + /* Synchronizes with smp_store_release() in
> > > > > + * __bpf_user_ringbuf_sample_release().
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + cons_pos = smp_load_acquire(&rb->consumer_pos);
> > > > > + if (cons_pos >= prod_pos) {
> > > > > + atomic_set(&rb->busy, 0);
> > > > > + return -ENODATA;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + hdr = (u32 *)((uintptr_t)rb->data + (cons_pos & rb->mask));
> > > > > + sample_len = *hdr;
> > > >
> > > > do we need smp_load_acquire() here? libbpf's ring_buffer
> > > > implementation uses load_acquire here
> > >
> > > I thought about this when I was first adding the logic, but I can't
> > > convince myself that it's necessary and wasn't able to figure out why we
> > > did a load acquire on the len in libbpf. The kernel doesn't do a store
> > > release on the header, so I'm not sure what the load acquire in libbpf
> > > actually accomplishes. I could certainly be missing something, but I
> > > _think_ the important thing is that we have load-acquire / store-release
> > > pairs for the consumer and producer positions.
> >
> > kernel does xchg on len on the kernel side, which is stronger than
> > smp_store_release (I think it was Paul's suggestion instead of doing
> > explicit memory barrier, but my memories are hazy for exact reasons).
>
> Hmmm, yeah, for the kernel-producer ringbuffer, I believe the explicit
> memory barrier is unnecessary because:
>
> o The smp_store_release() on producer_pos provides ordering w.r.t.
> producer_pos, and the write to hdr->len which includes the busy-bit
> should therefore be visibile in libbpf, which does an
> smp_load_acquire().
> o The xchg() when the sample is committed provides full barriers before
> and after, so the consumer is guaranteed to read the written contents of
> the sample IFF it also sees the BPF_RINGBUF_BUSY_BIT as unset.
>
> I can't see any scenario in which a barrier would add synchronization not
> already provided, though this stuff is tricky so I may have missed
> something.
>
> > Right now this might not be necessary, but if we add support for busy
> > bit in a sample header, it will be closer to what BPF ringbuf is doing
> > right now, with producer position being a reservation pointer, but
> > sample itself won't be "readable" until sample header is updated and
> > its busy bit is unset.
>
> Regarding this patch, after thinking about this more I _think_ I do need
> an xchg() (or equivalent operation with full barrier semantics) in
> userspace when updating the producer_pos when committing the sample.
> Which, after applying your suggestion (which I agree with) of supporting
> BPF_RINGBUF_BUSY_BIT and BPF_RINGBUF_DISCARD_BIT from the get-go, would
> similarly be an xchg() when setting the header, paired with an
> smp_load_acquire() when reading the header in the kernel.

right, I think __atomic_store_n() can be used in libbpf for this with
seq_cst ordering

>
> > > Yeah, I thought about this. I don't think there's any problem with clearing
> > > busy before we schedule the irq_work_queue(). I elected to do this to err
> > > on the side of simpler logic until we observed contention, but yeah, let me
> > > just do the more performant thing here.
> >
> > busy is like a global lock, so freeing it ASAP is good, so yeah,
> > unless there are some bad implications, let's do it early
>
> Ack.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > + ret = callback((u64)&dynptr,
> > > > > + (u64)(uintptr_t)callback_ctx, 0, 0, 0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + __bpf_user_ringbuf_sample_release(rb, size, flags);
> > > > > + num_samples++;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + } while (err == 0 && num_samples < 4096 && ret == 0);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > 4096 is pretty arbitrary. Definitely worth noting it somewhere and it
> > > > seems somewhat low, tbh...
> > > >
> > > > ideally we'd cond_resched() from time to time, but that would require
> > > > BPF program to be sleepable, so we can't do that :(
> > >
> > > Yeah, I knew this would come up in discussion. I would love to do
> > > cond_resched() here, but as you said, I don't think it's an option :-/ And
> > > given the fact that we're calling back into the BPF program, we have to be
> > > cognizant of things taking a while and clogging up the CPU. What do you
> > > think is a more reasonable number than 4096?
> >
> > I don't know, tbh, but 4096 seems pretty low. For bpf_loop() we allow
> > up to 2mln iterations. I'd bump it up to 64-128K range, probably. But
> > also please move it into some internal #define'd constant, not some
> > integer literal buried in a code
>
> Sounds good to me. Maybe at some point we can make this configurable, or
> something. If bpf_loop() allows a hard-coded number of iterations, I think
> it's more forgivable to do the same here. I'll bump it up to 128k and move
> it into a constant so it's not a magic number.
>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > case ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR:
> > > > > + /* We only need to check for initialized / uninitialized helper
> > > > > + * dynptr args if the dynptr is not MEM_ALLOC, as the assumption
> > > > > + * is that if it is, that a helper function initialized the
> > > > > + * dynptr on behalf of the BPF program.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (reg->type & MEM_ALLOC)
> > > >
> > > > Isn't PTR_TO_DYNPTR enough indication? Do we need MEM_ALLOC modifier?
> > > > Normal dynptr created and used inside BPF program on the stack are
> > > > actually PTR_TO_STACK, so that should be enough distinction? Or am I
> > > > missing something?
> > >
> > > I think this would also work in the current state of the codebase, but IIUC
> > > it relies on PTR_TO_STACK being the only way that a BPF program could ever
> > > allocate a dynptr. I was trying to guard against the case of a helper being
> > > added in the future that e.g. returned a dynamically allocated dynptr that
> > > the caller would eventually need to release in another helper call.
> > > MEM_ALLOC seems like the correct modifier to more generally denote that the
> > > dynptr was externally allocated. If you think this is overkill I'm totally
> > > fine with removing MEM_ALLOC. We can always add it down the road if we add
> > > a new helper that requires it.
> > >
> >
> > Hm.. I don't see a huge need for more flags for this, so I'd keep it
> > simple for now and if in the future we do have such a use case, we'll
> > address it at that time?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Thanks,
> David