Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 1/4] bpf: Parameterize task iterators.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:09 PM Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Allow creating an iterator that loops through resources of one task/thread.
>
> People could only create iterators to loop through all resources of
> files, vma, and tasks in the system, even though they were interested
> in only the resources of a specific task or process.  Passing the
> additional parameters, people can now create an iterator to go
> through all resources or only the resources of a task.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@xxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/bpf.h            |  25 +++++++
>  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |   6 ++
>  kernel/bpf/task_iter.c         | 116 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |   6 ++
>  4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 39bd36359c1e..59712dd917d8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1729,8 +1729,33 @@ int bpf_obj_get_user(const char __user *pathname, int flags);
>         extern int bpf_iter_ ## target(args);                   \
>         int __init bpf_iter_ ## target(args) { return 0; }
>
> +/*
> + * The task type of iterators.
> + *
> + * For BPF task iterators, they can be parameterized with various
> + * parameters to visit only some of tasks.
> + *
> + * BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL (default)
> + *     Iterate over resources of every task.
> + *
> + * BPF_TASK_ITER_TID
> + *     Iterate over resources of a task/tid.
> + *
> + * BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID
> + *     Iterate over reosurces of evevry task of a process / task group.

typos: resources, every

> + */
> +enum bpf_iter_task_type {
> +       BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL = 0,
> +       BPF_TASK_ITER_TID,
> +       BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID,
> +};
> +

[...]

>         rcu_read_lock();
>  retry:
> -       pid = find_ge_pid(*tid, ns);
> +       pid = find_ge_pid(*tid, common->ns);
>         if (pid) {
> -               *tid = pid_nr_ns(pid, ns);
> +               *tid = pid_nr_ns(pid, common->ns);
>                 task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>                 if (!task) {
>                         ++*tid;
>                         goto retry;
> -               } else if (skip_if_dup_files && !thread_group_leader(task) &&
> -                          task->files == task->group_leader->files) {
> +               } else if ((skip_if_dup_files && !thread_group_leader(task) &&
> +                           task->files == task->group_leader->files) ||
> +                          (common->type == BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID &&
> +                           __task_pid_nr_ns(task, PIDTYPE_TGID, common->ns) != common->pid)) {

it gets super hard to follow this logic, would a simple helper
function to calculate this condition (and maybe some comments to
explain the logic behind these checks?) make it a bit more readable?

>                         put_task_struct(task);
>                         task = NULL;
>                         ++*tid;
> @@ -56,7 +73,7 @@ static void *task_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
>         struct bpf_iter_seq_task_info *info = seq->private;
>         struct task_struct *task;
>
> -       task = task_seq_get_next(info->common.ns, &info->tid, false);
> +       task = task_seq_get_next(&info->common, &info->tid, false);
>         if (!task)
>                 return NULL;
>
> @@ -73,7 +90,7 @@ static void *task_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
>         ++*pos;
>         ++info->tid;
>         put_task_struct((struct task_struct *)v);
> -       task = task_seq_get_next(info->common.ns, &info->tid, false);
> +       task = task_seq_get_next(&info->common, &info->tid, false);
>         if (!task)
>                 return NULL;
>
> @@ -117,6 +134,48 @@ static void task_seq_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>                 put_task_struct((struct task_struct *)v);
>  }
>
> +static int bpf_iter_attach_task(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> +                               union bpf_iter_link_info *linfo,
> +                               struct bpf_iter_aux_info *aux)
> +{
> +       unsigned int flags;
> +       struct pid_namespace *ns;
> +       struct pid *pid;
> +       pid_t tgid;

it seems it would be simpler to first check that at most one of
tid/pid/pid_fd is set instead of making sure that aux->task.type
wasn't already set.

How about

if (!!linfo->task.tid + !!linfo->task.pid + !!linfo->task.pid_fd > 1)
    return -EINVAL;

?

> +
> +       aux->task.type = BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL;
> +       if (linfo->task.tid != 0) {
> +               aux->task.type = BPF_TASK_ITER_TID;
> +               aux->task.pid = linfo->task.tid;
> +       }
> +       if (linfo->task.pid != 0) {
> +               if (aux->task.type != BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL)
> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +
> +               aux->task.type = BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID;
> +               aux->task.pid = linfo->task.pid;
> +       }
> +       if (linfo->task.pid_fd != 0) {
> +               if (aux->task.type != BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL)
> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +
> +               aux->task.type = BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID;
> +               ns = task_active_pid_ns(current);
> +               if (IS_ERR(ns))
> +                       return PTR_ERR(ns);
> +
> +               pid = pidfd_get_pid(linfo->task.pid_fd, &flags);
> +               if (IS_ERR(pid))
> +                       return PTR_ERR(pid);
> +
> +               tgid = pid_nr_ns(pid, ns);
> +               aux->task.pid = tgid;
> +               put_pid(pid);
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +

[...]



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux