Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] libbpf: add bpf_link pinning/unpinning - Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] libbpf: add bpf_link pinning/unpinning
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 22:45:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o8tesa5t.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzakHPjOHcyf=idh+kMUVhk0jr=Zqd2px8vfxU5N1MV3Rg@mail.gmail.com>

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:17 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> writes:
>>
>> > With bpf_link abstraction supported by kernel explicitly, add
>> > pinning/unpinning API for links. Also allow to create (open) bpf_link from BPF
>> > FS file.
>> >
>> > This API allows to have an "ephemeral" FD-based BPF links (like raw tracepoint
>> > or fexit/freplace attachments) surviving user process exit, by pinning them in
>> > a BPF FS, which is an important use case for long-running BPF programs.
>> >
>> > As part of this, expose underlying FD for bpf_link. While legacy bpf_link's
>> > might not have a FD associated with them (which will be expressed as
>> > a bpf_link with fd=-1), kernel's abstraction is based around FD-based usage,
>> > so match it closely. This, subsequently, allows to have a generic
>> > pinning/unpinning API for generalized bpf_link. For some types of bpf_links
>> > kernel might not support pinning, in which case bpf_link__pin() will return
>> > error.
>> >
>> > With FD being part of generic bpf_link, also get rid of bpf_link_fd in favor
>> > of using vanialla bpf_link.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
>> > ---
>> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |   5 ++
>> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |   5 ++
>> >  3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > index 996162801f7a..f8c4042e5855 100644
>> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> > @@ -6931,6 +6931,8 @@ int bpf_prog_load_xattr(const struct bpf_prog_load_attr *attr,
>> >  struct bpf_link {
>> >       int (*detach)(struct bpf_link *link);
>> >       int (*destroy)(struct bpf_link *link);
>> > +     char *pin_path;         /* NULL, if not pinned */
>> > +     int fd;                 /* hook FD, -1 if not applicable */
>> >       bool disconnected;
>> >  };
>> >
>> > @@ -6960,26 +6962,109 @@ int bpf_link__destroy(struct bpf_link *link)
>> >               err = link->detach(link);
>> >       if (link->destroy)
>> >               link->destroy(link);
>> > +     if (link->pin_path)
>> > +             free(link->pin_path);
>>
>> This will still detach the link even if it's pinned, won't it? What's
>
> No, this will just free pin_path string memory.

I meant the containing function; i.e., link->detach() call above will
close the fd.

>> the expectation, that the calling application just won't call
>> bpf_link__destroy() if it pins the link? But then it will leak memory?
>> Or is it just that __destroy() will close the fd, but if it's pinned the
>> kernel won't actually detach anything? In that case, it seems like the
>> function name becomes somewhat misleading?
>
> Yes, the latter, it will close its own FD, but if someone else has
> open other FD against the same bpf_link (due to pinning or if you
> shared FD with child process, etc), then kernel will keep it.
> bpf_link__destroy() is more of a "sever the link my process has" or
> "destroy my local link". Maybe not ideal name, but should be close
> enough, I think.

Hmm, yeah, OK, I guess I can live with it ;)

-Toke