Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: add BPF_MAP_DUMP command to dump more than one entry per call

[Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>]

> > > Because maps can be called from userspace and kernel code, this function
> > > can have a scenario where the next_key was found but by the time we
> > > try to retrieve the value the element is not there, in this case the
> > > function continues and tries to get a new next_key value, skipping the
> > > deleted key. If at some point the function find itself trap in a loop,
> > > it will return -EINTR.
> >
> > Good to point this out! I don't think that unbounded continue;
> > statements until an interrupt happens is sufficient. Please bound the
> > number of retries to a low number.
>
> And what would it be a good number? Maybe 3 attempts?

3 sounds good to me.

> And in that case what error should be reported?

One that's unambiguous and somewhat intuitive for the given issue.
Perhaps EBUSY?

> > > The function will try to fit as much as possible in the buf provided and
> > > will return -EINVAL if buf_len is smaller than elem_size.
> > >
> > > QUEUE and STACK maps are not supported.
> > >
> > > Note that map_dump doesn't guarantee that reading the entire table is
> > > consistent since this function is always racing with kernel and user code
> > > but the same behaviour is found when the entire table is walked using
> > > the current interfaces: map_get_next_key + map_lookup_elem.
> >
> > > It is also important to note that with  a locked map, the lock is grabbed
> > > for 1 entry at the time, meaning that the returned buf might or might not
> > > be consistent.
> >
> > Would it be informative to signal to the caller if the read was
> > complete and consistent (because the entire table was read while the
> > lock was held)?
>
> Mmm.. not sure how we could signal that to the caller.  But I don't
> think there's a way to know it was consistent

Okay, that makes for a simple answer :) No need to try to add a signal, then.