Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/8] bpf: support attaching freplace programs to multiple attach points

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:13 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [ will fix all your comments above ]
>>
>> >> @@ -3924,10 +3983,16 @@ static int tracing_bpf_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *
>> >>             prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER)
>> >>                 return bpf_iter_link_attach(attr, prog);
>> >>
>> >> +       if (attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FREPLACE &&
>> >> +           !prog->expected_attach_type)
>> >> +               return bpf_tracing_prog_attach(prog,
>> >> +                                              attr->link_create.target_fd,
>> >> +                                              attr->link_create.target_btf_id);
>> >
>> > Hm.. so you added a "fake" BPF_TRACE_FREPLACE attach_type, which is
>> > not really set with BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT and is only specified for the
>> > LINK_CREATE command. Are you just trying to satisfy the link_create
>> > flow of going from attach_type to program type? If that's the only
>> > reason, I think we can adjust link_create code to handle this more
>> > flexibly.
>> >
>> > I need to think a bit more whether we want BPF_TRACE_FREPLACE at all,
>> > but if we do, whether we should make it an expected_attach_type for
>> > BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT then...
>>
>> Yeah, wasn't too sure about this. But attach_type seemed to be the only
>> way to disambiguate between the different link types in the LINK_CREATE
>> command, so went with that. Didn't think too much about it, TBH :)
>
> having extra attach types has real costs in terms of memory (in cgroup
> land), which no one ever got to fixing yet. And then
> prog->expected_attach_type != link's expected_attach_type looks weird
> and wrong and who knows which bugs we'll get later because of this.
>
>>
>> I guess an alternative could be to just enforce attach_type==0 and look
>> at prog->type? Or if you have any other ideas, I'm all ears!
>
> Right, we have prog fd, so can get it (regardless of type), then do
> switch by type, then translate expected attach type to prog type and
> see if it matches, but only for program types that care (which right
> now is all but tracing, where it's obvious from prog_type alone, I
> think).

Right, makes sense; will do that in the next version!

-Toke