Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf: Introduce BPF_MAP_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS
From: Martin Lau <hidden>
Date: 2019-12-27 06:16:46
Also in:
bpf
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:57:48AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote: [ ... ]
quoted
+static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, + void *value, u64 flags) +{ + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)map; + const struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops = st_map->st_ops; + struct bpf_struct_ops_value *uvalue, *kvalue; + const struct btf_member *member; + const struct btf_type *t = st_ops->type; + void *udata, *kdata; + int prog_fd, err = 0; + void *image; + u32 i; + + if (flags) + return -EINVAL; + + if (*(u32 *)key != 0) + return -E2BIG; + + uvalue = (struct bpf_struct_ops_value *)value; + if (uvalue->state || refcount_read(&uvalue->refcnt)) + return -EINVAL; + + uvalue = (struct bpf_struct_ops_value *)st_map->uvalue; + kvalue = (struct bpf_struct_ops_value *)&st_map->kvalue; + + spin_lock(&st_map->lock); + + if (kvalue->state != BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_INIT) { + err = -EBUSY; + goto unlock; + } + + memcpy(uvalue, value, map->value_size); + + udata = &uvalue->data; + kdata = &kvalue->data; + image = st_map->image; + + for_each_member(i, t, member) { + const struct btf_type *mtype, *ptype; + struct bpf_prog *prog; + u32 moff; + + moff = btf_member_bit_offset(t, member) / 8; + mtype = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, member->type); + ptype = btf_type_resolve_ptr(btf_vmlinux, member->type, NULL); + if (ptype == module_type) { + *(void **)(kdata + moff) = BPF_MODULE_OWNER; + continue; + } + + err = st_ops->init_member(t, member, kdata, udata); + if (err < 0) + goto reset_unlock; + + /* The ->init_member() has handled this member */ + if (err > 0) + continue; + + /* If st_ops->init_member does not handle it, + * we will only handle func ptrs and zero-ed members + * here. Reject everything else. + */ + + /* All non func ptr member must be 0 */ + if (!btf_type_resolve_func_ptr(btf_vmlinux, member->type, + NULL)) { + u32 msize; + + mtype = btf_resolve_size(btf_vmlinux, mtype, + &msize, NULL, NULL); + if (IS_ERR(mtype)) { + err = PTR_ERR(mtype); + goto reset_unlock; + } + + if (memchr_inv(udata + moff, 0, msize)) { + err = -EINVAL; + goto reset_unlock; + } + + continue; + } + + prog_fd = (int)(*(unsigned long *)(udata + moff)); + /* Similar check as the attr->attach_prog_fd */ + if (!prog_fd) + continue; + + prog = bpf_prog_get(prog_fd); + if (IS_ERR(prog)) { + err = PTR_ERR(prog); + goto reset_unlock; + } + st_map->progs[i] = prog; + + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS || + prog->aux->attach_btf_id != st_ops->type_id || + prog->expected_attach_type != i) { + err = -EINVAL; + goto reset_unlock; + } + + err = arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(image, + &st_ops->func_models[i], 0, + &prog, 1, NULL, 0, NULL); + if (err < 0) + goto reset_unlock; + + *(void **)(kdata + moff) = image; + image += err; + + /* put prog_id to udata */ + *(unsigned long *)(udata + moff) = prog->aux->id; + }Should we check whether user indeed provided `module` member or not before declaring success?
hmm.... By 'module', you meant the "if (ptype == module_type)" logic at the beginning? Yes, it should check user passed 0 also. will fix.
quoted
+static struct bpf_map *bpf_struct_ops_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) +{ + const struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops; + size_t map_total_size, st_map_size; + struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map; + const struct btf_type *t, *vt; + struct bpf_map_memory mem; + struct bpf_map *map; + int err; + + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) + return ERR_PTR(-EPERM); + + st_ops = bpf_struct_ops_find_value(attr->btf_vmlinux_value_type_id); + if (!st_ops) + return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP); + + vt = st_ops->value_type; + if (attr->value_size != vt->size) + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + + t = st_ops->type; + + st_map_size = sizeof(*st_map) + + /* kvalue stores the + * struct bpf_struct_ops_tcp_congestions_ops + */ + (vt->size - sizeof(struct bpf_struct_ops_value)); + map_total_size = st_map_size + + /* uvalue */ + sizeof(vt->size) + + /* struct bpf_progs **progs */ + btf_type_vlen(t) * sizeof(struct bpf_prog *); + err = bpf_map_charge_init(&mem, map_total_size); + if (err < 0) + return ERR_PTR(err); + + st_map = bpf_map_area_alloc(st_map_size, NUMA_NO_NODE); + if (!st_map) { + bpf_map_charge_finish(&mem); + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + } + st_map->st_ops = st_ops; + map = &st_map->map; + + st_map->uvalue = bpf_map_area_alloc(vt->size, NUMA_NO_NODE); + st_map->progs = + bpf_map_area_alloc(btf_type_vlen(t) * sizeof(struct bpf_prog *), + NUMA_NO_NODE); + /* Each trampoline costs < 64 bytes. Ensure one page + * is enough for max number of func ptrs. + */ + BUILD_BUG_ON(PAGE_SIZE / 64 < BPF_STRUCT_OPS_MAX_NR_MEMBERS);This maybe true for x86 now, but it may not hold up for future other architectures. Not sure whether we should get the value for arch call backs, or we just bail out during map update if we ever grow exceeds one page.
I will reuse the existing WARN_ON_ONCE() check in arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(). Need to parameterize the end-of-image (i.e. the current PAGE_SIZE / 2 assumption).