On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:24 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:22 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 10/11, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even though we have the pointer to user_struct and can recover
> > > > > > uid of the user who has created the program, it usually contains
> > > > > > 0 (root) which is not very informative. Let's store the comm of the
> > > > > > calling process and export it via bpf_prog_info. This should help
> > > > > > answer the question "which process loaded this particular program".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > > > > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++++
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > index 5b9d22338606..b03ea396afe5 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > @@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
> > > > > > struct work_struct work;
> > > > > > struct rcu_head rcu;
> > > > > > };
> > > > > > + char created_by_comm[BPF_CREATED_COMM_LEN];
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct bpf_array {
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > index a65c3b0c6935..4e883ecbba1e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > @@ -326,6 +326,7 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
> > > > > > #define BPF_F_NUMA_NODE (1U << 2)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN 16U
> > > > > > +#define BPF_CREATED_COMM_LEN 16U
> > > > >
> > > > > Nack.
> > > > > 16 bytes is going to be useless.
> > > > > We found it the hard way with prog_name.
> > > > > If you want to embed additional debug information
> > > > > please use BTF for that.
> > > > BTF was my natural choice initially, but then I saw created_by_uid and
> > > > thought created_by_comm might have a chance :-)
> > > >
> > > > To clarify, by BTF you mean creating some unused global variable
> > > > and use its name as the debugging info? Or there is some better way?
> > >
> > > I was thinking about adding new section to .btf.ext with this extra data,
> > > but global variable is a better idea indeed.
> > > We'd need to standardize such variables names, so that
> > > bpftool can parse and print it while doing 'bpftool prog show'.
> > > We see more and more cases where services use more than
> > > one program in single .c file to accomplish their goals.
> > > Tying such debug info (like 'created_by_comm') to each program
> > > individually isn't quite right.
> > > In that sense global variables are better, since they cover the
> > > whole .c file.
> > > Beyond 'created_by_comm' there are others things that people
> > > will likely want to know.
> > > Like which version of llvm was used to compile this .o file.
> > > Which unix user name compiled it.
> > > The name of service/daemon that will be using this .o
> > > and so on.
> > > May be some standard prefix to such global variables will do?
> > > Like "bpftool prog show" can scan global data for
> > > "__annotate_#name" and print both name and string contents ?
> > > For folks who regularly ssh into servers to debug bpf progs
> > > that will help a lot.
> > > May be some annotations llvm can automatically add to .o.
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > We can dedicate separate ELF section for such variables, similar to
> > license and version today, so that libbpf will know that those
> > variables are not real variables and shouldn't be used from BPF
> > program itself. But we can have many of them in single section, unlike
> > version and license. :) With that, we'll have metadata and list of
> > variables in BTF (DATASEC + VARs). The only downside - you'll need ELF
> > itself to get the value of that variable, no? Is that acceptable? Do
> > we always know where original ELF is?
>
> Having .o around is not acceptable.
> That was already tried and didn't work with bcc.
> I was proposing to have these special vars to be loaded into the kernel
> as part of normal btf loading.
BTF is just metadata for variables. We'll know name and type
information about variable, but we need a string contents. That is
stored in ELF, so without .o file we won't be able to extract it.
Unless you have something else in mind?
> Not sure what special section gives.
It's a marker that libbpf doesn't have to allocate memory and create
internal map for that section. We don't want those annotation
variables to be backed by BPF map, do we?
