On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:08:31PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:36:59PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * Key information from vm_area_struct. We need this because we cannot
> >> + * assume the vm_area_struct is still valid after each iteration.
> >> + */
> >> +struct __vm_area_struct {
> >> + __u64 start;
> >> + __u64 end;
> >> + __u64 flags;
> >> + __u64 pgoff;
> >> +};
> >
> > Where it's inside .c or exposed in uapi/bpf.h it will become uapi
> > if it's used this way. Let's switch to arbitrary BTF-based access instead.
> >
> >> +static struct __vm_area_struct *
> >> +task_vma_seq_get_next(struct bpf_iter_seq_task_vma_info *info)
> >> +{
> >> + struct pid_namespace *ns = info->common.ns;
> >> + struct task_struct *curr_task;
> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >> + u32 curr_tid = info->tid;
> >> + bool new_task = false;
> >> +
> >> + /* If this function returns a non-NULL __vm_area_struct, it held
> >> + * a reference to the task_struct. If info->file is non-NULL, it
> >> + * also holds a reference to the file. If this function returns
> >> + * NULL, it does not hold any reference.
> >> + */
> >> +again:
> >> + if (info->task) {
> >> + curr_task = info->task;
> >> + } else {
> >> + curr_task = task_seq_get_next(ns, &curr_tid, true);
> >> + if (!curr_task) {
> >> + info->task = NULL;
> >> + info->tid++;
> >> + return NULL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (curr_tid != info->tid) {
> >> + info->tid = curr_tid;
> >> + new_task = true;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (!curr_task->mm)
> >> + goto next_task;
> >> + info->task = curr_task;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + mmap_read_lock(curr_task->mm);
> >
> > That will hurt. /proc readers do that and it causes all sorts
> > of production issues. We cannot take this lock.
> > There is no need to take it.
> > Switch the whole thing to probe_read style walking.
> > And reimplement find_vma with probe_read while omitting vmacache.
> > It will be short rbtree walk.
> > bpf prog doesn't need to see a stable struct. It will read it through ptr_to_btf_id
> > which will use probe_read equivalent underneath.
>
> rw_semaphore is designed to avoid write starvation, so read_lock should not cause
> problem unless the lock was taken for extended period. [1] was a recent fix that
> avoids /proc issue by releasing mmap_lock between iterations. We are using similar
> mechanism here. BTW: I changed this to mmap_read_lock_killable() in the next version.
>
> On the other hand, we need a valid vm_file pointer for bpf_d_path. So walking the
ahh. I missed that. Makes sense.
vm_file needs to be accurate, but vm_area_struct should be accessed as ptr_to_btf_id.
> rbtree without taking any lock would not work. We can avoid taking the lock when
> some SPF like mechanism merged (hopefully soonish).
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
> We can improve bpf_iter with some mechanism to specify which task to iterate, so
> that we don't have to iterate through all tasks when the user only want to inspect
> vmas in one task.
yes. let's figure out how to make it parametrizable.
map_iter runs only for given map_fd.
Maybe vma_iter should run only for given pidfd?
I think all_task_all_vmas iter is nice to have, but we don't really need it?
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> [1] ff9f47f6f00c ("mm: proc: smaps_rollup: do not stall write attempts on mmap_lock")
Thanks for this link. With "if (mmap_lock_is_contended())" check it should work indeed.
