On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:46:20AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:57 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:31:08PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > Previous patch adds 1:1 mapping between all 211 LSM hooks
> > > and bpf_cgroup program array. Instead of reserving a slot per
> > > possible hook, reserve 10 slots per cgroup for lsm programs.
> > > Those slots are dynamically allocated on demand and reclaimed.
> > > This still adds some bloat to the cgroup and brings us back to
> > > roughly pre-cgroup_bpf_attach_type times.
> > >
> > > It should be possible to eventually extend this idea to all hooks if
> > > the memory consumption is unacceptable and shrink overall effective
> > > programs array.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/bpf-cgroup-defs.h | 4 +-
> > > include/linux/bpf_lsm.h | 6 ---
> > > kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 9 ++--
> > > kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > 4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup-defs.h b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup-defs.h
> > > index 6c661b4df9fa..d42516e86b3a 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup-defs.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup-defs.h
> > > @@ -10,7 +10,9 @@
> > >
> > > struct bpf_prog_array;
> > >
> > > -#define CGROUP_LSM_NUM 211 /* will be addressed in the next patch */
> > > +/* Maximum number of concurrently attachable per-cgroup LSM hooks.
> > > + */
> > > +#define CGROUP_LSM_NUM 10
> > hmm...only 10 different lsm hooks (or 10 different attach_btf_ids) can
> > have BPF_LSM_CGROUP programs attached. This feels quite limited but having
> > a static 211 (and potentially growing in the future) is not good either.
> > I currently do not have a better idea also. :/
> >
> > Have you thought about other dynamic schemes or they would be too slow ?
> >
> > > enum cgroup_bpf_attach_type {
> > > CGROUP_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE_INVALID = -1,
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > > index 7f0e59f5f9be..613de44aa429 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > > @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_inode_storage_delete_proto;
> > > void bpf_inode_storage_free(struct inode *inode);
> > >
> > > int bpf_lsm_find_cgroup_shim(const struct bpf_prog *prog, bpf_func_t *bpf_func);
> > > -int bpf_lsm_hook_idx(u32 btf_id);
> > >
> > > #else /* !CONFIG_BPF_LSM */
> > >
> > > @@ -74,11 +73,6 @@ static inline int bpf_lsm_find_cgroup_shim(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline int bpf_lsm_hook_idx(u32 btf_id)
> > > -{
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_BPF_LSM */
> > >
> > > #endif /* _LINUX_BPF_LSM_H */
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > index eca258ba71d8..8b948ec9ab73 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > @@ -57,10 +57,12 @@ static unsigned int __cgroup_bpf_run_lsm_socket(const void *ctx,
> > > if (unlikely(!sk))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > + rcu_read_lock(); /* See bpf_lsm_attach_type_get(). */
> > > cgrp = sock_cgroup_ptr(&sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> > > if (likely(cgrp))
> > > ret = BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG(cgrp->bpf.effective[prog->aux->cgroup_atype],
> > > ctx, bpf_prog_run, 0);
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -77,7 +79,7 @@ static unsigned int __cgroup_bpf_run_lsm_current(const void *ctx,
> > > /*prog = container_of(insn, struct bpf_prog, insnsi);*/
> > > prog = (const struct bpf_prog *)((void *)insn - offsetof(struct bpf_prog, insnsi));
> > >
> > > - rcu_read_lock();
> > > + rcu_read_lock(); /* See bpf_lsm_attach_type_get(). */
> > I think this is also needed for task_dfl_cgroup(). If yes,
> > will be a good idea to adjust the comment if it ends up
> > using the 'CGROUP_LSM_NUM 10' scheme.
> >
> > While at rcu_read_lock(), have you thought about what major things are
> > needed to make BPF_LSM_CGROUP sleepable ?
> >
> > The cgroup local storage could be one that require changes but it seems
> > the cgroup local storage is not available to BPF_LSM_GROUP in this change set.
> > The current use case doesn't need it?
>
> No, I haven't thought about sleepable at all yet :-( But seems like
> having that rcu lock here might be problematic if we want to sleep? In
> this case, Jakub's suggestion seems better.
The new rcu_read_lock() here seems fine after some thoughts.
I was looking at the helpers in cgroup_base_func_proto() to get a sense
on sleepable support. Only the bpf_get_local_storage caught my eyes for
now because it uses a call_rcu to free the storage. That will be the
major one to change for sleepable that I can think of for now.
