Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: preallocate a perf_sample_data per event fd

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 06/04/2019 01:54 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:48 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2019 01:27 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:59 PM Matt Mullins <mmullins@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If these are invariably non-nested, I can easily keep bpf_misc_sd when
>>>> I resubmit.  There was no technical reason other than keeping the two
>>>> codepaths as similar as possible.
>>>>
>>>> What resource gives you worry about doing this for the networking
>>>> codepath?
>>>
>>> my preference would be to keep tracing and networking the same.
>>> there is already minimal nesting in networking and probably we see
>>> more when reuseport progs will start running from xdp and clsbpf
>>>
>>>>> Aside from that it's also really bad to miss events like this as exporting
>>>>> through rb is critical. Why can't you have a per-CPU counter that selects a
>>>>> sample data context based on nesting level in tracing? (I don't see a discussion
>>>>> of this in your commit message.)
>>>>
>>>> This change would only drop messages if the same perf_event is
>>>> attempted to be used recursively (i.e. the same CPU on the same
>>>> PERF_EVENT_ARRAY map, as I haven't observed anything use index !=
>>>> BPF_F_CURRENT_CPU in testing).
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to accomplish the same with a percpu nesting level and
>>>> allocating 2 or 3 perf_sample_data per cpu.  I think that'll solve the
>>>> same problem -- a local patch keeping track of the nesting level is how
>>>> I got the above stack trace, too.
>>>
>>> I don't think counter approach works. The amount of nesting is unknown.
>>> imo the approach taken in this patch is good.
>>> I don't see any issue when event_outputs will be dropped for valid progs.
>>> Only when user called the helper incorrectly without BPF_F_CURRENT_CPU.
>>> But that's an error anyway.
>>
>> My main worry with this xchg() trick is that we'll miss to export crucial
>> data with the EBUSY bailing out especially given nesting could increase in
>> future as you state, so users might have a hard time debugging this kind of
>> issue if they share the same perf event map among these programs, and no
>> option to get to this data otherwise. Supporting nesting up to a certain
>> level would still be better than a lost event which is also not reported
>> through the usual way aka perf rb.
> 
> I simply don't see this 'miss to export data' in all but contrived conditions.
> Say two progs share the same perf event array.
> One prog calls event_output and while rb logic is working
> another prog needs to start executing and use the same event array

Correct.

> slot. Today it's only possible for tracing prog combined with networking,
> but having two progs use the same event output array is pretty much
> a user bug. Just like not passing BPF_F_CURRENT_CPU.

I don't see the user bug part, why should that be a user bug? It's the same
as if we would say that sharing a BPF hash map between networking programs
attached to different hooks or networking and tracing would be a user bug
which it is not. One concrete example would be cilium monitor where we
currently expose skb trace and drop events a well as debug data through
the same rb. This should be usable from any type that has perf_event_output
helper enabled (e.g. XDP and tc/BPF) w/o requiring to walk yet another per
cpu mmap rb from user space.