linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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)
>   {



  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