Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 1/4] bpf: Add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:25 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/24 6:52 AM, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It's necessary to traverse all subflows on the conn_list of an MPTCP
> > socket and then call kfunc to modify the fields of each subflow. In
> > kernel space, mptcp_for_each_subflow() helper is used for this:
> >
> >   mptcp_for_each_subflow(msk, subflow)
> >           kfunc(subflow);
> >
> > But in the MPTCP BPF program, this has not yet been implemented. As
> > Martin suggested recently, this conn_list walking + modify-by-kfunc
> > usage fits the bpf_iter use case.
> >
> > This patch adds a new bpf_iter type named "mptcp_subflow" to do this.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   kernel/bpf/helpers.c |  3 +++
> >   net/mptcp/bpf.c      | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > index b5f0adae8293..2340ba967444 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > @@ -3023,6 +3023,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_preempt_enable)
> >   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_new, KF_ITER_NEW)
> >   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> >   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy)
> >   BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
> >
> >   static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {
> > diff --git a/net/mptcp/bpf.c b/net/mptcp/bpf.c
> > index 9672a70c24b0..cda09bbfd617 100644
> > --- a/net/mptcp/bpf.c
> > +++ b/net/mptcp/bpf.c
> > @@ -204,6 +204,63 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_mptcp_fmodret_set = {
> >       .set   = &bpf_mptcp_fmodret_ids,
> >   };
> >
> > +struct bpf_iter__mptcp_subflow {
> > +     __bpf_md_ptr(struct bpf_iter_meta *, meta);
> > +     __bpf_md_ptr(struct mptcp_sock *, msk);
> > +     __bpf_md_ptr(struct list_head *, pos);
> > +};
> > +
> > +DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(mptcp_subflow, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta,
> > +                  struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct list_head *pos)

this is defining BPF iterator *program type* (effectively), which is
different from open-coded iterator. Do you need a BPF iterator program
type for this? Or open-coded iterator called from other BPF program
types would be sufficient?

> > +
> > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow {
> > +     __u64 __opaque[3];
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > +
> > +struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern {
> > +     struct mptcp_sock *msk;
> > +     struct list_head *pos;
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

opaque[3], but you are using two pointers here. Why the difference?

> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it,
> > +                                        struct mptcp_sock *msk)
> > +{
> > +     struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +
> > +     kit->msk = msk;
> > +     kit->pos = &msk->conn_list;
> > +     spin_lock_bh(&msk->pm.lock);
>
> I don't think spin_lock here without unlock can be used. e.g. What if
> bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new() is called twice back-to-back.
>
> I haven't looked at the mptcp details, some questions:
> The list is protected by msk->pm.lock?
> What happen to the sk_lock of the msk?
> Can this be rcu-ify? or it needs some cares when walking the established TCP
> subflow?
>
>
> [ Please cc the bpf list. Helping to review patches is a good way to contribute
> back to the mailing list. ]
>
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc struct mptcp_subflow_context *
> > +bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it)
> > +{
> > +     struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +     struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow;
> > +     struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk;
> > +
> > +     subflow = list_entry((kit->pos)->next, struct mptcp_subflow_context, node);
> > +     if (list_entry_is_head(subflow, &msk->conn_list, node))
> > +             return NULL;
> > +
> > +     kit->pos = &subflow->node;
> > +     return subflow;
> > +}
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy(struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow *it)
> > +{
> > +     struct bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +     struct mptcp_sock *msk = kit->msk;
> > +
> > +     spin_unlock_bh(&msk->pm.lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> > +
> >   __diag_push();
> >   __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes",
> >                 "kfuncs which will be used in BPF programs");
>
>





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux