On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:00 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/26/21 9:12 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Add ability for users to specify custom u64 value when creating BPF link for
> > perf_event-backed BPF programs (kprobe/uprobe, perf_event, tracepoints).
> >
> > This is useful for cases when the same BPF program is used for attaching and
> > processing invocation of different tracepoints/kprobes/uprobes in a generic
> > fashion, but such that each invocation is distinguished from each other (e.g.,
> > BPF program can look up additional information associated with a specific
> > kernel function without having to rely on function IP lookups). This enables
> > new use cases to be implemented simply and efficiently that previously were
> > possible only through code generation (and thus multiple instances of almost
> > identical BPF program) or compilation at runtime (BCC-style) on target hosts
> > (even more expensive resource-wise). For uprobes it is not even possible in
> > some cases to know function IP before hand (e.g., when attaching to shared
> > library without PID filtering, in which case base load address is not known
> > for a library).
> >
> > This is done by storing u64 user_ctx in struct bpf_prog_array_item,
> > corresponding to each attached and run BPF program. Given cgroup BPF programs
> > already use 2 8-byte pointers for their needs and cgroup BPF programs don't
> > have (yet?) support for user_ctx, reuse that space through union of
> > cgroup_storage and new user_ctx field.
> >
> > Make it available to kprobe/tracepoint BPF programs through bpf_trace_run_ctx.
> > This is set by BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY, used by kprobe/uprobe/tracepoint BPF
> > program execution code, which luckily is now also split from
> > BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG. This run context will be utilized by a new BPF helper
> > giving access to this user context value from inside a BPF program. Generic
> > perf_event BPF programs will access this value from perf_event itself through
> > passed in BPF program context.
> >
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c | 4 ++--
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 1 +
> > include/linux/trace_events.h | 6 +++---
> > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++++
> > kernel/bpf/core.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +-
> > kernel/events/core.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 8 +++++---
> > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++++
> > 10 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c b/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> > index afae0afe3f81..7490494273e4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c
> > @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static int lirc_bpf_attach(struct rc_dev *rcdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > goto unlock;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = bpf_prog_array_copy(old_array, NULL, prog, &new_array);
> > + ret = bpf_prog_array_copy(old_array, NULL, prog, 0, &new_array);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto unlock;
> >
> [...]
> > void bpf_trace_run1(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1);
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 00b1267ab4f0..bc1fd54a8f58 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -1448,6 +1448,13 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > __aligned_u64 iter_info; /* extra bpf_iter_link_info */
> > __u32 iter_info_len; /* iter_info length */
> > };
> > + struct {
> > + /* black box user-provided value passed through
> > + * to BPF program at the execution time and
> > + * accessible through bpf_get_user_ctx() BPF helper
> > + */
> > + __u64 user_ctx;
> > + } perf_event;
>
> Is it possible to fold this field into previous union?
>
> union {
> __u32 target_btf_id; /* btf_id of
> target to attach to */
> struct {
> __aligned_u64 iter_info; /*
> extra bpf_iter_link_info */
> __u32 iter_info_len; /*
> iter_info length */
> };
> };
>
>
I didn't want to do it, because different types of BPF links will
accept this user_ctx (or now bpf_cookie). And then we'll have to have
different locations of that field for different types of links.
For example, when/if we add this user_ctx to BPF iterator programs,
having __u64 user_ctx in the same anonymous union will make it overlap
with iter_info, which is a problem. So I want to have a link
type-specific sections in LINK_CREATE command section, to allow the
same field name at different locations.
I actually think that we should put iter_info/iter_info_len into a
named field, like this (also added user_ctx for bpf_iter link as a
demonstration):
struct {
__aligned_u64 info;
__u32 info_len;
__aligned_u64 user_ctx; /* see how it's at a different offset
than perf_event.user_ctx */
} iter;
struct {
__u64 user_ctx;
} perf_event;
(of course keeping already existing fields in anonymous struct for
backwards compatibility)
I decided to not do that in this patch set, though, to not distract
from the main goal. But I think we should avoid this shared field
"namespace" across different link types going forward.
> > };
> > } link_create;
> >
> [...]
