On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:40 PM Andrii Nakryiko
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:30 PM Hao Luo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:50 PM Andrii Nakryiko
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:27 PM Hao Luo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 8:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:48 AM Yosry Ahmed [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+};
+
 union bpf_iter_link_info {
        struct {
                __u32   map_fd;
        } map;
+
+       /* cgroup_iter walks either the live descendants of a cgroup subtree, or the
+        * ancestors of a given cgroup.
+        */
+       struct {
+               /* Cgroup file descriptor. This is root of the subtree if walking
+                * descendants; it's the starting cgroup if walking the ancestors.
+                * If it is left 0, the traversal starts from the default cgroup v2
+                * root. For walking v1 hierarchy, one should always explicitly
+                * specify the cgroup_fd.
+                */
+               __u32   cgroup_fd;

Now, similar to what I argued in regard of pidfd vs pid, I think the
same applied to cgroup_fd vs cgroup_id. Why can't we support both?
cgroup_fd has some benefits, but cgroup_id is nice due to simplicity
and not having to open/close/keep extra FDs (which can add up if we
want to periodically query something about a large set of cgroups).
Please see my arguments from [0] above.

Thoughts?

We can support both, it's a good idea IMO. But what exactly is the
interface going to look like? Can you be more specific about that?
Below is something I tried based on your description.

@@ -91,6 +91,18 @@ union bpf_iter_link_info {
        struct {
                __u32   map_fd;
        } map;
+       struct {
+               /* PRE/POST/UP/SELF */
+               __u32 order;
+               struct {
+                       __u32 cgroup_fd;
+                       __u64 cgroup_id;
+               } cgroup;
+               struct {
+                       __u32 pid_fd;
+                       __u64 pid;
+               } task;
+       };
 };

So I wouldn't combine task and cgroup definition together, let's keep
them independent.

then for cgroup we can do something like:

struct {
    __u32 order;
    __u32 cgroup_fd; /* cgroup_fd ^ cgroup_id, exactly one can be non-zero */
    __u32 cgroup_id;
} cgroup

Similar idea with task, but it's a bit more complicated because there
we have target that can be pid, pidfd, or cgroup (cgroup_fd and
cgroup_id). I haven't put much thought into the best representation,
though.

The cgroup part sounds good to me. For the full picture, how about
this? I'm just trying  a prototype, hoping that it can help people to
get a clear picture.

union bpf_iter_link_info {
          struct {
                  __u32   map_fd;
          } map;
          struct {
                  __u32   order; /* PRE/POST/UP/SELF */
                  __u32   cgroup_fd;
                  __u64   cgroup_id;
          } cgroup;

lgtm

quoted

          struct {
                  __u32   pid;
                  __u32   pid_fd;
                  __u64   cgroup_id;
                  __u32   cgroup_fd;
                  __u32   mode; /* SELF or others */

I'd move mode to be first. I'm undecided on using 4 separate fields
for pid/pid_fd/cgroup_{id,fd} vs a single union (or just generic "u64
target"  and then mode can define how we should treat target --
whether it's pid, pid_fd, cgroup ID or FD. I'm fine either way, I
think. But for cgroup case not having to duplicate PRE/POST/UP/SELF
for cgroup id and then for cgroup fd seems like a win. So separate
fields might be better. It's also pretty extendable. And I'm
personally not worried about using few more bytes in bpf_attr for
disjoin fields like this.

Sounds good. Thanks for clarification. Using separate fields looks
good to me. Since we settled on the cgroup part, I will apply update
in cgroup_iter v7.

quoted

          } task;
};

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+               __u32   traversal_order;
+       } cgroup;
 };

 /* BPF syscall commands, see bpf(2) man-page for more details. */

[...]