From: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:17:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ7eJa7C8=eRL3XoRjmccgD0udoyoi38MOjo7H0rsnZOYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <733ebec6-e4b0-0913-0483-c79338d03798@fb.com>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:27 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> > To access per-task data, BPF program typically creates a hash table with
> > pid as the key. This is not ideal because:
> > 1. The use need to estimate requires size of the hash table, with may be
> > inaccurate;
> > 2. Big hash tables are slow;
> > 3. To clean up the data properly during task terminations, the user need
> > to write code.
> >
> > Task local storage overcomes these issues and becomes a better option for
> > these per-task data. Task local storage is only available to BPF_LSM. Now
> > enable it for tracing programs.
> >
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> > ---
[...]
> > struct cfs_rq;
> > struct fs_struct;
> > @@ -1348,6 +1349,10 @@ struct task_struct {
> > /* Used by LSM modules for access restriction: */
> > void *security;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > + /* Used by BPF task local storage */
> > + struct bpf_local_storage *bpf_storage;
> > +#endif
>
> I remembered there is a discussion where KP initially wanted to put
> bpf_local_storage in task_struct, but later on changed to
> use in lsm as his use case mostly for lsm. Did anybody
> remember the details of the discussion? Just want to be
> sure what is the concern people has with putting bpf_local_storage
> in task_struct and whether the use case presented by
> Song will justify it.
>
If I recall correctly, the discussion was about inode local storage and
it was decided to use the security blob since the use-case was only LSM
programs. Since we now plan to use it in tracing,
detangling the dependency from CONFIG_BPF_LSM
sounds logical to me.
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
> > unsigned long lowest_stack;
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > index d1249340fd6ba..ca995fdfa45e7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > @@ -8,9 +8,8 @@ CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init) $(cflags-nogcse-yy)
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o task_iter.o prog_iter.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += local_storage.o queue_stack_maps.o ringbuf.o bpf_task_storage.o
> > obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_inode_storage.o
> > -obj-${CONFIG_BPF_LSM} += bpf_task_storage.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += disasm.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) += trampoline.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += btf.o
> [...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-11 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210108231950.3844417-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
[not found] ` <20210108231950.3844417-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
2021-01-11 6:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 10:17 ` KP Singh [this message]
2021-01-11 15:56 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 10:14 ` KP Singh
2021-01-11 23:16 ` Song Liu
2021-01-11 17:16 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 18:56 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-01-11 21:35 ` KP Singh
2021-01-11 21:58 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-01-11 23:45 ` Song Liu
2021-01-12 16:32 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-12 16:53 ` KP Singh
2021-01-15 23:34 ` Song Liu
2021-01-16 0:55 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-16 1:12 ` Song Liu
2021-01-16 1:50 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 23:41 ` Song Liu
2021-01-12 18:21 ` Martin KaFai Lau
[not found] ` <20210108231950.3844417-4-songliubraving@fb.com>
2021-01-11 17:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: runqslower: prefer use local vmlinux Yonghong Song
[not found] ` <20210108231950.3844417-5-songliubraving@fb.com>
2021-01-11 17:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf: runqslower: use task local storage Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 22:54 ` Song Liu
2021-01-12 3:24 ` Yonghong Song
2021-01-12 7:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-01-12 7:33 ` Yonghong Song
[not found] ` <20210108231950.3844417-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
2021-01-11 17:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add non-BPF_LSM test for " Yonghong Song
2021-01-11 17:44 ` KP Singh
2021-01-11 22:50 ` Song Liu
2021-01-11 22:49 ` Song Liu
2021-01-12 7:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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='CACYkzJ7eJa7C8=eRL3XoRjmccgD0udoyoi38MOjo7H0rsnZOYA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).