From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] cgroup: add support for eBPF programs Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:47:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2102550b-5eb4-66be-39c0-495202c60c1a@zonque.org> References: <1472241532-11682-1-git-send-email-daniel@zonque.org> <1472241532-11682-3-git-send-email-daniel@zonque.org> <20160827000325.GA29480@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: htejun@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@fb.com, davem@davemloft.net, kafai@fb.com, fw@strlen.de, pablo@netfilter.org, harald@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sargun@sargun.me To: Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: Received: from svenfoo.org ([82.94.215.22]:56583 "EHLO mail.zonque.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932274AbcIEMrs (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:47:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160827000325.GA29480@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Alexei, On 08/27/2016 02:03 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:58:48PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> This patch adds two sets of eBPF program pointers to struct cgroup. >> One for such that are directly pinned to a cgroup, and one for such >> that are effective for it. >> >> To illustrate the logic behind that, assume the following example >> cgroup hierarchy. >> >> A - B - C >> \ D - E >> >> If only B has a program attached, it will be effective for B, C, D >> and E. If D then attaches a program itself, that will be effective for >> both D and E, and the program in B will only affect B and C. Only one >> program of a given type is effective for a cgroup. >> >> Attaching and detaching programs will be done through the bpf(2) >> syscall. For now, ingress and egress inet socket filtering are the >> only supported use-cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack > ... >> + css_for_each_descendant_pre(pos, &cgrp->self) { >> + struct cgroup *desc = container_of(pos, struct cgroup, self); >> + >> + /* skip the subtree if the descendant has its own program */ >> + if (desc->bpf.prog[type] && desc != cgrp) > > is desc != cgrp really needed? > I thought css_for_each_descendant_pre() shouldn't walk itself > or I'm missing how it works. Hmm, no - that check is necessary in my tests, and also according to the documentation: /** * css_for_each_descendant_pre - pre-order walk of a css's descendants * @pos: the css * to use as the loop cursor * @root: css whose descendants to walk * * Walk @root's descendants. @root is included in the iteration and the * first node to be visited. Must be called under rcu_read_lock(). * Daniel