On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:26 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/11/19 2:33 PM, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > This commit introduces generic support for the bpf_map_lookup_batch and
> > bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_batch ops. This implementation can be used by
> > almost all the bpf maps since its core implementation is relying on the
> > existing map_get_next_key, map_lookup_elem and map_delete_elem
> > functions. The bpf syscall subcommands introduced are:
> >
> > BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_BATCH
> > BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_BATCH
> >
> > The UAPI attribute is:
> >
> > struct { /* struct used by BPF_MAP_*_BATCH commands */
> > __aligned_u64 in_batch; /* start batch,
> > * NULL to start from beginning
> > */
> > __aligned_u64 out_batch; /* output: next start batch */
> > __aligned_u64 keys;
> > __aligned_u64 values;
> > __u32 count; /* input/output:
> > * input: # of key/value
> > * elements
> > * output: # of filled elements
> > */
> > __u32 map_fd;
> > __u64 elem_flags;
> > __u64 flags;
> > } batch;
> >
> > in_batch/out_batch are opaque values use to communicate between
> > user/kernel space, in_batch/out_batch must be of key_size length.
> >
> > To start iterating from the beginning in_batch must be null,
> > count is the # of key/value elements to retrieve. Note that the 'keys'
> > buffer must be a buffer of key_size * count size and the 'values' buffer
> > must be value_size * count, where value_size must be aligned to 8 bytes
> > by userspace if it's dealing with percpu maps. 'count' will contain the
> > number of keys/values successfully retrieved. Note that 'count' is an
> > input/output variable and it can contain a lower value after a call.
> >
> > If there's no more entries to retrieve, ENOENT will be returned. If error
> > is ENOENT, count might be > 0 in case it copied some values but there were
> > no more entries to retrieve.
> >
> > Note that if the return code is an error and not -EFAULT,
> > count indicates the number of elements successfully processed.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 11 +++
> > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 19 +++++
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 202 insertions(+)
> [...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > index 2530266fa6477..708aa89fe2308 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > @@ -1206,6 +1206,120 @@ static int map_get_next_key(union bpf_attr *attr)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +#define MAP_LOOKUP_RETRIES 3
> > +
> > +static int __generic_map_lookup_batch(struct bpf_map *map,
> > + const union bpf_attr *attr,
> > + union bpf_attr __user *uattr,
> > + bool do_delete)
> > +{
> > + void __user *ubatch = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.in_batch);
> > + void __user *uobatch = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.out_batch);
> > + void __user *values = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.values);
> > + void __user *keys = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.keys);
> > + void *buf, *prev_key, *key, *value;
> > + u32 value_size, cp, max_count;
> > + bool first_key = false;
> > + int err, retry = MAP_LOOKUP_RETRIES;
>
> Could you try to use reverse Christmas tree style declaration here?
ACK
>
> > +
> > + if (attr->batch.elem_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if ((attr->batch.elem_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
> > + !map_value_has_spin_lock(map))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
> > +
> > + max_count = attr->batch.count;
> > + if (!max_count)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + buf = kmalloc(map->key_size + value_size, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > + if (!buf)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + err = -EFAULT;
> > + first_key = false;
> > + if (ubatch && copy_from_user(buf, ubatch, map->key_size))
> > + goto free_buf;
> > + key = buf;
> > + value = key + map->key_size;
> > + if (!ubatch) {
> > + prev_key = NULL;
> > + first_key = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (cp = 0; cp < max_count;) {
> > + if (cp || first_key) {
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + err = map->ops->map_get_next_key(map, prev_key, key);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + if (err)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + err = bpf_map_copy_value(map, key, value,
> > + attr->batch.elem_flags, do_delete);
> > +
> > + if (err == -ENOENT) {
> > + if (retry) {
> > + retry--;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > + err = -EINTR;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (err)
> > + goto free_buf;
> > +
> > + if (copy_to_user(keys + cp * map->key_size, key,
> > + map->key_size)) {
> > + err = -EFAULT;
> > + goto free_buf;
> > + }
> > + if (copy_to_user(values + cp * value_size, value, value_size)) {
> > + err = -EFAULT;
> > + goto free_buf;
> > + }
> > +
> > + prev_key = key;
> > + retry = MAP_LOOKUP_RETRIES;
> > + cp++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!err) {
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + err = map->ops->map_get_next_key(map, prev_key, key);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (err)
> > + memset(key, 0, map->key_size);
>
> So if any error happens due to above map_get_next_key() or earlier
> error, the next "batch" returned to user could be "0". What should
> user space handle this? Ultimately, the user space needs to start
> from the beginning again?
>
> What I mean is here how we could design an interface so user
> space, if no -EFAULT error, can successfully get all elements
> without duplication.
>
> One way to do here is just return -EFAULT if we cannot get
> proper next key. But maybe we could have better mechanism
> when we try to implement what user space codes will look like.
I was thinking that instead of using the "next key" as a token we
could use the last value successfully copied as the token, that way
user space code would always be able to start/retry from the last
processed entry. Do you think this would work?
>
> > +
> > + if ((copy_to_user(&uattr->batch.count, &cp, sizeof(cp)) ||
> > + (copy_to_user(uobatch, key, map->key_size))))
> > + err = -EFAULT;
> > +
> > +free_buf:
> > + kfree(buf);
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> [...]
