bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Are BPF tail calls only supposed to work with pinned maps?
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:53:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190926125347.GB6563@pc-63.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874l0z2tdx.fsf@toke.dk>

Hi Toke,

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:23:38PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> While working on a prototype of the XDP chain call feature, I ran into
> some strange behaviour with tail calls: If I create a userspace program
> that loads two XDP programs, one of which tail calls the other, the tail
> call map would appear to be empty even though the userspace program
> populates it as part of the program loading.
> I eventually tracked this down to this commit:
> c9da161c6517 ("bpf: fix clearing on persistent program array maps")


> Which clears PROG_ARRAY maps whenever the last uref to it disappears
> (which it does when my loader exits after attaching the XDP program).
> This effectively means that tail calls only work if the PROG_ARRAY map
> is pinned (or the process creating it keeps running). And as far as I
> can tell, the inner_map reference in bpf_map_fd_get_ptr() doesn't bump
> the uref either, so presumably if one were to create a map-in-map
> construct with tail call pointer in the inner map(s), each inner map
> would also need to be pinned (haven't tested this case)?

There is no map in map support for tail calls today.

> Is this really how things are supposed to work? From an XDP use case PoV
> this seems somewhat surprising...
> Or am I missing something obvious here?

The way it was done like this back then was in order to break up cyclic
dependencies as otherwise the programs and maps involved would never get
freed as they reference themselves and live on in the kernel forever
consuming potentially large amount of resources, so orchestration tools
like Cilium typically just pin the maps in bpf fs (like most other maps
it uses and accesses from agent side) in order to up/downgrade the agent
while keeping BPF datapath intact.


  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-26 12:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-26 11:23 Are BPF tail calls only supposed to work with pinned maps? Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-09-26 12:53 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2019-09-26 13:12   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-09-26 18:14     ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-09-27  7:27       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190926125347.GB6563@pc-63.home \
    --to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=toke@redhat.com \


* 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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).