Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/19] bpf: add bpf_map iterator

Yonghong Song
2020-04-29T06:44:54Z

On 4/28/20 11:40 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:30 PM Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/28/20 11:20 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/28/20 11:08 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:10 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/20 7:44 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/20 6:15 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/28/20 5:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/20 5:37 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> + prog = bpf_iter_get_prog(seq, sizeof(struct
>>>>>>>>>> bpf_iter_seq_map_info),
>>>>>>>>>> + &meta.session_id, &meta.seq_num,
>>>>>>>>>> + v == (void *)0);
>>>>>>>>> From looking at seq_file.c, when will show() be called with "v ==
>>>>>>>>> NULL"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that v == NULL here and the whole verifier change just to allow
>>>>>>>> NULL...
>>>>>>>> may be use seq_num as an indicator of the last elem instead?
>>>>>>>> Like seq_num with upper bit set to indicate that it's last?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could. But then verifier won't have an easy way to verify that.
>>>>>>> For example, the above is expected:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int prog(struct bpf_map *map, u64 seq_num) {
>>>>>>> if (seq_num >> 63)
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>> ... map->id ...
>>>>>>> ... map->user_cnt ...
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if user writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int prog(struct bpf_map *map, u64 seq_num) {
>>>>>>> ... map->id ...
>>>>>>> ... map->user_cnt ...
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> verifier won't be easy to conclude inproper map pointer tracing
>>>>>>> here and in the above map->id, map->user_cnt will cause
>>>>>>> exceptions and they will silently get value 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean always pass valid object pointer into the prog.
>>>>>> In above case 'map' will always be valid.
>>>>>> Consider prog that iterating all map elements.
>>>>>> It's weird that the prog would always need to do
>>>>>> if (map == 0)
>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>> even if it doesn't care about finding last.
>>>>>> All progs would have to have such extra 'if'.
>>>>>> If we always pass valid object than there is no need
>>>>>> for such extra checks inside the prog.
>>>>>> First and last element can be indicated via seq_num
>>>>>> or via another flag or via helper call like is_this_last_elem()
>>>>>> or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I see what you mean now. Basically this means
>>>>> seq_ops->next() should try to get/maintain next two elements,
>>>>
>>>> What about the case when there are no elements to iterate to begin
>>>> with? In that case, we still need to call bpf_prog for (empty)
>>>> post-aggregation, but we have no valid element... For bpf_map
>>>> iteration we could have fake empty bpf_map that would be passed, but
>>>> I'm not sure it's applicable for any time of object (e.g., having a
>>>> fake task_struct is probably quite a bit more problematic?)...
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, thanks for reminding me of this. I put a call to
>>> bpf_prog in seq_ops->stop() especially to handle no object
>>> case. In that case, seq_ops->start() will return NULL,
>>> seq_ops->next() won't be called, and then seq_ops->stop()
>>> is called. My earlier attempt tries to hook with next()
>>> and then find it not working in all cases.
>>
>> wait a sec. seq_ops->stop() is not the end.
>> With lseek of seq_file it can be called multiple times.

Yes, I have taken care of this. when the object is NULL,
bpf program will be called. When the object is NULL again,
it won't be called. The private data remembers it has
been called with NULL.

>
> We don't allow seeking on seq_file created from bpf_iter_link, so
> there should be no lseek'ing?
>
>> What's the point calling bpf prog with NULL then?
>
> To know that iteration has ended, even if there were 0 elements to
> iterate. 0, 1 or N doesn't matter, we might still need to do some
> final actions (e.g., submit or print summary).
>