On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:51 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 2020-06-17 23:01 UTC-0700 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2020-06-17 09:18 UTC-0700 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> >>> Add bpf_iter-based way to find all the processes that hold open FDs against
> >>> BPF object (map, prog, link, btf). bpftool always attempts to discover this,
> >>> but will silently give up if kernel doesn't yet support bpf_iter BPF programs.
> >>> Process name and PID are emitted for each process (task group).
> >>>
> >>> Sample output for each of 4 BPF objects:
> >>>
> >>> $ sudo ./bpftool prog show
> >>> 2694: cgroup_device tag 8c42dee26e8cd4c2 gpl
> >>> loaded_at 2020-06-16T15:34:32-0700 uid 0
> >>> xlated 648B jited 409B memlock 4096B
> >>> pids systemd(1)
> >>> 2907: cgroup_skb name egress tag 9ad187367cf2b9e8 gpl
> >>> loaded_at 2020-06-16T18:06:54-0700 uid 0
> >>> xlated 48B jited 59B memlock 4096B map_ids 2436
> >>> btf_id 1202
> >>> pids test_progs(2238417), test_progs(2238445)
> >>>
> >>> $ sudo ./bpftool map show
> >>> 2436: array name test_cgr.bss flags 0x400
> >>> key 4B value 8B max_entries 1 memlock 8192B
> >>> btf_id 1202
> >>> pids test_progs(2238417), test_progs(2238445)
> >>> 2445: array name pid_iter.rodata flags 0x480
> >>> key 4B value 4B max_entries 1 memlock 8192B
> >>> btf_id 1214 frozen
> >>> pids bpftool(2239612)
> >>>
> >>> $ sudo ./bpftool link show
> >>> 61: cgroup prog 2908
> >>> cgroup_id 375301 attach_type egress
> >>> pids test_progs(2238417), test_progs(2238445)
> >>> 62: cgroup prog 2908
> >>> cgroup_id 375344 attach_type egress
> >>> pids test_progs(2238417), test_progs(2238445)
> >>>
> >>> $ sudo ./bpftool btf show
> >>> 1202: size 1527B prog_ids 2908,2907 map_ids 2436
> >>> pids test_progs(2238417), test_progs(2238445)
> >>> 1242: size 34684B
> >>> pids bpftool(2258892)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/pids.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/pids.c
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..3474a91743ff
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/pids.c
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> +int build_obj_refs_table(struct obj_refs_table *table, enum bpf_obj_type type)
> >>> +{
> >>> + char buf[4096];
> >>> + struct pid_iter_bpf *skel;
> >>> + struct pid_iter_entry *e;
> >>> + int err, ret, fd = -1, i;
> >>> + libbpf_print_fn_t default_print;
> >>> +
> >>> + hash_init(table->table);
> >>> + set_max_rlimit();
> >>> +
> >>> + skel = pid_iter_bpf__open();
> >>> + if (!skel) {
> >>> + p_err("failed to open PID iterator skeleton");
> >>> + return -1;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + skel->rodata->obj_type = type;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* we don't want output polluted with libbpf errors if bpf_iter is not
> >>> + * supported
> >>> + */
> >>> + default_print = libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_none);
> >>> + err = pid_iter_bpf__load(skel);
> >>> + libbpf_set_print(default_print);
> >>> + if (err) {
> >>> + /* too bad, kernel doesn't support BPF iterators yet */
> >>> + err = 0;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> + err = pid_iter_bpf__attach(skel);
> >>> + if (err) {
> >>> + /* if we loaded above successfully, attach has to succeed */
> >>> + p_err("failed to attach PID iterator: %d", err);
> >>
> >> Nit: What about using strerror(err) for the error messages, here and
> >> below? It's easier to read than an integer value.
> >
> > I'm actually against it. Just a pure string message for error is often
> > quite confusing. It's an extra step, and sometimes quite a quest in
> > itself, to find what's the integer value of errno it was, just to try
> > to understand what kind of error it actually is. So I certainly prefer
> > having integer value, optionally with a string error message.
> >
> > But that's too much hassle for this "shouldn't happen" type of errors.
> > If they happen, the user is unlikely to infer anything useful and fix
> > the problem by themselves. They will most probably have to ask on the
> > mailing list and paste error messages verbatim and let people like me
> > and you try to guess what's going on. In such cases, having an errno
> > number is much more helpful.
>
> Ok, fair enough.
>
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + fd = bpf_iter_create(bpf_link__fd(skel->links.iter));
> >>> + if (fd < 0) {
> >>> + err = -errno;
> >>> + p_err("failed to create PID iterator session: %d", err);
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + while (true) {
> >>> + ret = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> >>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>> + err = -errno;
> >>> + p_err("failed to read PID iterator output: %d", err);
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> + if (ret == 0)
> >>> + break;
> >>> + if (ret % sizeof(*e)) {
> >>> + err = -EINVAL;
> >>> + p_err("invalid PID iterator output format");
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> + ret /= sizeof(*e);
> >>> +
> >>> + e = (void *)buf;
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < ret; i++, e++) {
> >>> + add_ref(table, e);
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> + err = 0;
> >>> +out:
> >>> + if (fd >= 0)
> >>> + close(fd);
> >>> + pid_iter_bpf__destroy(skel);
> >>> + return err;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..f560e48add07
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
> >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>
> >> This would make it the only file not dual-licensed GPL/BSD in bpftool.
> >> We've had issues with that before [0], although linking to libbfd is no
> >> more a hard requirement. But I see you used a dual-license in the
> >> corresponding header file pid_iter.h, so is the single license
> >> intentional here? Or would you consider GPL/BSD?
> >>
> >
> > The other BPF program (skeleton/profiler.bpf.c) is also GPL-2.0, we
> > should probably switch both.
>
> Oh I missed that one :(. Yeah, if this is possible, that would be great!
>
> >> [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896165#38
> >>
> >>> +// Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook
> >>> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> >>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> >>> +#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
> >>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> >>> +#include "pid_iter.h"
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +char LICENSE[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> >
> > I wonder if leaving this as GPL would be ok, if the source code itself
> > is dual GPL/BSD?
>
> If the concern is to pass the verifier, it accepts a handful of
> different strings (see include/linux/license.h), one of which is "Dual
> BSD/GPL" and should probably be used in that case. Or did you have
> something else in mind?
Oh, awesome, wasn't aware of this. I'll use "Dual BSD/GPL" then.
