From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@iogearbox.net>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: return errno -ENOMEM when exceeding RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:00:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170221140013.76afb3c2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170221080609.GA42330@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:06:11 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:57:34 +0100
> > Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/20/2017 04:35 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > > It is confusing users of samples/bpf that exceeding the resource
> > > > limits for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK result in an "Operation not permitted"
> > > > message. This is due to bpf limits check return -EPERM.
> > > >
> > > > Instead return -ENOMEM, like most other users of this API.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: aaac3ba95e4c ("bpf: charge user for creation of BPF maps and programs")
> > > > Fixes: 6c9059817432 ("bpf: pre-allocate hash map elements")
> > > > Fixes: 5ccb071e97fb ("bpf: fix overflow in prog accounting")
> > >
> > > Btw, last one just moves the helper so fixes doesn't really apply
> > > there, but apart from that this is already uapi exposed behavior
> > > like this for ~1.5yrs, so unfortunately too late to change now. I
> > > think the original intention (arguably confusing in this context)
> > > was that user doesn't have (rlimit) permission to allocate this
> > > resource.
> >
> > This is obviously confusing end-users, thus it should be fixed IMHO.
>
> I don't think it's confusing and I think EPERM makes
> the most sense as return code in such situation.
Most other kernel users return ENOMEM.
> There is also code in iovisor/bcc that specifically looking
> for EPERM to adjust ulimit.
If there is already a program that depend on this, then it is ABI and
we cannot change it... drop this patch.
> May be it's not documented properly, but that's different story.
Documented it here:
https://prototype-kernel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bpf/troubleshooting.html
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-21 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-20 15:35 [PATCH net-next] bpf: return errno -ENOMEM when exceeding RLIMIT_MEMLOCK Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2017-02-20 15:57 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-02-20 16:25 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2017-02-21 8:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-02-21 13:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2017-02-22 7:14 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=20170221140013.76afb3c2@redhat.com \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=borkmann@iogearbox.net \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).