On Apr 18 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:30PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > again, copy/paste from bpf_timer_start().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > index e5c8adc44619..ed5309a37eda 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > @@ -2728,6 +2728,29 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_wq_init(struct bpf_wq *wq, void *map, unsigned int flags)
> > return __bpf_async_init(async, map, flags, BPF_ASYNC_TYPE_WQ);
> > }
> >
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_wq_start(struct bpf_wq *wq, unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_async_kern *async = (struct bpf_async_kern *)wq;
> > + struct bpf_work *w;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + if (flags)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + __bpf_spin_lock_irqsave(&async->lock);
> > + w = async->work;
> > + if (!w || !w->cb.prog) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + schedule_work(&w->work);
> > +out:
> > + __bpf_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async->lock);
>
> Looks like you're not adding wq_cancel kfunc in this patch set and
> it's probably a good thing not to expose async cancel to bpf users,
> since it's a foot gun.
Honestly I just felt the patch series was big enough for a PoC and
comparison with sleepable bpf_timer. But if we think this needs not to
be added, I guess that works too :)
> Even when we eventually add wq_cancel_sync kfunc it will not be
> removing a callback.
Yeah, I understood that bit :)
> So we can drop spinlock here.
> READ_ONCE of w and cb would be enough.
> Since they cannot get back to NULL once init-ed and cb is set.
Great, thanks for the review (and the other patches).
I'll work toward v2.
Cheers,
Benjamin
