From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem_cache iterator
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:22:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3655d46-5c42-407e-adc1-b17865432e45@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241017080604.541872-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
On 10/17/24 1:06 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Add a new open coded iterator for kmem_cache which can be called from a
> BPF program like below. It doesn't take any argument and traverses all
> kmem_cache entries.
>
> struct kmem_cache *pos;
>
> bpf_for_each(kmem_cache, pos) {
> ...
> }
>
> As it needs to grab slab_mutex, it should be called from sleepable BPF
> programs only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 3 ++
> kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 073e6f04f4d765ff..d1dfa4f335577914 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -3111,6 +3111,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_copy_from_user_str, KF_SLEEPABLE)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_kmem_cache)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
>
> static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> index ebc101d7da51b57c..31ddaf452b20a458 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,93 @@ static const struct bpf_iter_seq_info kmem_cache_iter_seq_info = {
> .seq_ops = &kmem_cache_iter_seq_ops,
> };
>
> +/* open-coded version */
> +struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache {
> + __u64 __opaque[1];
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> +
> +struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache_kern {
> + struct kmem_cache *pos;
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_kmem_cache_new(struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache *it)
> +{
> + struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> +
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*kit) > sizeof(*it));
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(*kit) != __alignof__(*it));
> +
> + kit->pos = NULL;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc struct kmem_cache *bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next(struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache *it)
> +{
> + struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> + struct kmem_cache *prev = kit->pos;
> + struct kmem_cache *next;
> + bool destroy = false;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
I think taking mutex_lock here should be fine since sleepable tracing prog
should be limited to the error injection whitelist. Those functions should not
have held the mutex afaict.
> +
> + if (list_empty(&slab_caches)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if (prev == NULL)
> + next = list_first_entry(&slab_caches, struct kmem_cache, list);
> + else if (list_last_entry(&slab_caches, struct kmem_cache, list) == prev)
> + next = NULL;
At the last entry, next is NULL.
> + else
> + next = list_next_entry(prev, list);
> +
> + /* boot_caches have negative refcount, don't touch them */
> + if (next && next->refcount > 0)
> + next->refcount++;
> +
> + /* Skip kmem_cache_destroy() for active entries */
> + if (prev && prev->refcount > 1)
> + prev->refcount--;
> + else if (prev && prev->refcount == 1)
> + destroy = true;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + if (destroy)
> + kmem_cache_destroy(prev);
> +
> + kit->pos = next;
so kit->pos will be NULL also. Does it mean the bpf prog will be able to call
bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next() again and re-loop from the beginning of the
slab_caches list?
> + return next;
> +}
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_kmem_cache_destroy(struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache *it)
> +{
> + struct bpf_iter_kmem_cache_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> + struct kmem_cache *s = kit->pos;
> + bool destroy = false;
> +
> + if (s == NULL)
> + return;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + /* Skip kmem_cache_destroy() for active entries */
> + if (s->refcount > 1)
> + s->refcount--;
> + else if (s->refcount == 1)
> + destroy = true;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> +
> + if (destroy)
> + kmem_cache_destroy(s);
> +}
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> +
> static void bpf_iter_kmem_cache_show_fdinfo(const struct bpf_iter_aux_info *aux,
> struct seq_file *seq)
> {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-18 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-17 8:06 Namhyung Kim
2024-10-17 8:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a test for open coded kmem_cache iter Namhyung Kim
2024-10-18 18:46 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-22 17:51 ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-21 23:36 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-22 17:52 ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-24 7:44 ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-18 18:22 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2024-10-22 17:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem_cache iterator Namhyung Kim
2024-10-21 23:32 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-22 17:50 ` Namhyung Kim
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=b3655d46-5c42-407e-adc1-b17865432e45@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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