On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:54 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:59 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 2022-06-16 00:05 UTC+0800 ~ Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:52 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 6:23 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:20 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2022-06-14 20:37 UTC+0800 ~ Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 1:17 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2022-06-10 09:46 UTC-0700 ~ Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 9:34 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 2022-06-10 09:07 UTC-0700 ~ sdf@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 06/10, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> This reverts commit a777e18f1bcd32528ff5dfd10a6629b655b05eb8.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In commit a777e18f1bcd ("bpftool: Use libbpf 1.0 API mode instead of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK"), we removed the rlimit bump in bpftool, because the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> kernel has switched to memcg-based memory accounting. Thanks to the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> LIBBPF_STRICT_AUTO_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, we attempted to keep compatibility
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with other systems and ask libbpf to raise the limit for us if
> > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> How do we know if memcg-based accounting is supported? There is a probe
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in libbpf to check this. 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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> A patch was submitted [0] to update this probe in libbpf, based on what
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the cilium/ebpf Go library does [1]. It would lower the soft rlimit to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 0, attempt to load a BPF object, and reset the rlimit. But it may induce
> > >>>>>>>>>>> some hard-to-debug flakiness if another process starts, or the current
> > >>>>>>>>>>> application is killed, while the rlimit is reduced, and the approach was
> > >>>>>>>>>>> discarded.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a workaround to ensure that the rlimit bump does not depend on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> availability of a given helper, we restore the unconditional rlimit bump
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in bpftool for now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [0]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220609143614.97837-1-quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/blob/v0.9.0/rlimit/rlimit.go#L39
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c | 8 ++++++++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c | 2 ++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c | 6 +++---
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.h | 2 ++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c | 2 ++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/pids.c | 1 +
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 3 +++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/struct_ops.c | 2 ++
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 8 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> index a45b42ee8ab0..a0d4acd7c54a 100644
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/magic.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <net/if.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <sys/mount.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/resource.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <sys/stat.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <sys/vfs.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -72,6 +73,13 @@ static bool is_bpffs(char *path)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> return (unsigned long)st_fs.f_type == BPF_FS_MAGIC;
> > >>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +void set_max_rlimit(void)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + struct rlimit rinf = { RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY };
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rinf);
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you think it might make sense to print to stderr some warning if
> > >>>>>>>>>> we actually happen to adjust this limit?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> if (getrlimit(MEMLOCK) != RLIM_INFINITY) {
> > >>>>>>>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Warning: resetting MEMLOCK rlimit to
> > >>>>>>>>>> infinity!\n");
> > >>>>>>>>>> setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rinf);
> > >>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> ?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Because while it's nice that we automatically do this, this might still
> > >>>>>>>>>> lead to surprises for some users. OTOH, not sure whether people
> > >>>>>>>>>> actually read those warnings? :-/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not strictly opposed to a warning, but I'm not completely sure this
> > >>>>>>>>> is desirable.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Bpftool has raised the rlimit for a long time, it changed only in April,
> > >>>>>>>>> so I don't think it would come up as a surprise for people who have used
> > >>>>>>>>> it for a while. I think this is also something that several other
> > >>>>>>>>> BPF-related applications (BCC I think?, bpftrace, Cilium come to mind)
> > >>>>>>>>> have been doing too.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> In this case ignore me and let's continue doing that :-)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Btw, eventually we'd still like to stop doing that I'd presume?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Agreed. I was thinking either finding a way to improve the probe in
> > >>>>>>> libbpf, or waiting for some more time until 5.11 gets old, but this may
> > >>>>>>> take years :/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Should
> > >>>>>>>> we at some point follow up with something like:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> if (kernel_version >= 5.11) { don't touch memlock; }
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I guess we care only about <5.11 because of the backports, but 5.11+
> > >>>>>>>> kernels are guaranteed to have memcg.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You mean from uname() and parsing the release? Yes I suppose we could do
> > >>>>>>> that, can do as a follow-up.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yeah, uname-based, I don't think we can do better? Given that probing
> > >>>>>> is problematic as well :-(
> > >>>>>> But idk, up to you.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Agreed with the uname-based solution. Another possible solution is to
> > >>>>> probe the member 'memcg' in struct bpf_map, in case someone may
> > >>>>> backport memcg-based memory accounting, but that will be a little
> > >>>>> over-engineering. The uname-based solution is simple and can work.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks! Yes, memcg would be more complex: the struct is not exposed to
> > >>>> user space, and BTF is not a hard dependency for bpftool. I'll work on
> > >>>> the uname-based test as a follow-up to this set.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> After a second thought, the uname-based test may not work, because
> > >>> CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM can be disabled.
> > >>
> > >> Does it matter? Regardless of whether there is memcg or not, we
> > >> shouldn't touch ulimit on 5.11+
> > >> If there is no memcg, there is no bpf memory enforcement.
> > >
> > > Right, rlimit-based accounting is totally removed, that is not the
> > > same with what I thought before, while I thought it will fallback to
> > > rlimit-based if kmemcg is disabled.
> >
> > Agreed, and so I've got a patch ready for the uname-based probe.
> >
> > But talking about this with Daniel, we were wondering if it would make
> > sense instead to have the probe I had initially submitted (lower the
> > rlimit to 0, attempt to load a program, reset rlimit - see [0]), but
> > only for bpftool instead of libbpf? My understanding is that the memlock
> > rlimit is per-process, right? So this shouldn't affect any other
> > process, and because bpftool is not multithreaded, nothing other than
> > probing would happen while the rlimit is at zero?
>
> Makes sense.
> It is safe to do the probe within bpftool.
+1, seems to be safe to continue doing that in bpftool.
