On 06/09, Quentin Monnet wrote:
To ensure that memory accounting will not hinder the load of BPF
objects, libbpf may raise the memlock rlimit before proceeding to some
operations. Whether this limit needs to be raised depends on the version
of the kernel: newer versions use cgroup-based (memcg) memory
accounting, and do not require any adjustment.
There is a probe in libbpf to determine whether memcg-based accounting
is supported. But this probe currently relies on the availability of a
given BPF helper, bpf_ktime_get_coarse_ns(), which landed in the same
kernel version as the memory accounting change. This works in the
generic case, but it may fail, for example, if the helper function has
been backported to an older kernel. This has been observed for Google
Cloud's Container-Optimized OS (COS), where the helper is available but
rlimit is still in use. The probe succeeds, the rlimit is not raised,
and probing features with bpftool, for example, fails.
Here we attempt to improve this probe and to effectively rely on memory
accounting. Function probe_memcg_account() in libbpf is updated to set
the rlimit to 0, then attempt to load a BPF object, and then to reset
the rlimit. If the load still succeeds, then this means we're running
with memcg-based accounting.
This probe was inspired by the similar one from the cilium/ebpf Go
library [0].
[0] https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/blob/v0.9.0/rlimit/rlimit.go#L39
Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
index 240186aac8e6..781387e6f66b 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
@@ -99,31 +99,44 @@ static inline int sys_bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr
*attr, unsigned int size, int
/* Probe whether kernel switched from memlock-based (RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) to
* memcg-based memory accounting for BPF maps and progs. This was done
in [0].
- * We use the support for bpf_ktime_get_coarse_ns() helper, which was
added in
- * the same 5.11 Linux release ([1]), to detect memcg-based accounting
for BPF.
+ * To do so, we lower the soft memlock rlimit to 0 and attempt to create
a BPF
+ * object. If it succeeds, then memcg-based accounting for BPF is
available.
*
* [0]
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201201215900.3569844-1-guro@xxxxxx/
- * [1] d05512618056 ("bpf: Add bpf_ktime_get_coarse_ns helper")
*/
int probe_memcg_account(void)
{
const size_t prog_load_attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr,
attach_btf_obj_fd);
struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
- BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_coarse_ns),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
};
+ struct rlimit rlim_init, rlim_cur_zero = {};
size_t insn_cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(insns);
union bpf_attr attr;
int prog_fd;
- /* attempt loading freplace trying to use custom BTF */
memset(&attr, 0, prog_load_attr_sz);
attr.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER;
attr.insns = ptr_to_u64(insns);
attr.insn_cnt = insn_cnt;
attr.license = ptr_to_u64("GPL");
+ if (getrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_init))
+ return -1;
+
+ /* Drop the soft limit to zero. We maintain the hard limit to its
+ * current value, because lowering it would be a permanent operation
+ * for unprivileged users.
+ */
+ rlim_cur_zero.rlim_max = rlim_init.rlim_max;
+ if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_cur_zero))
+ return -1;
+
prog_fd = sys_bpf_fd(BPF_PROG_LOAD, &attr, prog_load_attr_sz);
+
+ /* reset soft rlimit as soon as possible */
+ setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_init);
Isn't that adding more flakiness to the other daemons running as
the same user? Also, there might be surprises if another daemon that
has libbpf in it starts right when we've set the limit temporarily to zero.
Can we push these decisions to the users as part of libbpf 1.0 cleanup?
+
if (prog_fd >= 0) {
close(prog_fd);
return 1;
--
2.34.1
