| Message ID | 20201112200914.2726327-1-revest@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf: Expose bpf_sk_storage_* to iterator programs | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:09:14PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote: > From: Florent Revest <revest@google.com> > > Iterators are currently used to expose kernel information to userspace > over fast procfs-like files but iterators could also be used to > initialize local storage. For example, the task_file iterator could be > used to store associations between processes and sockets. > > This exposes the socket local storage helpers to all iterators. Martin > Kafai checked that this was safe to call these helpers from the > sk_storage_map iterators. > > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@google.com> > --- > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > index e4515b0f62a8..3530120fa280 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ > #include <linux/error-injection.h> > #include <linux/btf_ids.h> > > +#include <net/bpf_sk_storage.h> > + > #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h> > #include <uapi/linux/btf.h> > > @@ -1750,6 +1752,14 @@ tracing_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) > NULL; > case BPF_FUNC_d_path: > return &bpf_d_path_proto; > + case BPF_FUNC_sk_storage_get: > + return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER ? > + &bpf_sk_storage_get_proto : > + NULL; > + case BPF_FUNC_sk_storage_delete: > + return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER ? > + &bpf_sk_storage_delete_proto : > + NULL; Test(s) is needed. e.g. iterating a bpf_sk_storage_map and also calling bpf_sk_storage_get/delete. I would expect to see another test/example showing how it works end-to-end to solve the problem you have in hand. This patch probably belongs to a longer series. BTW, I am also enabling bpf_sk_storage_(get|delete) for FENTRY/FEXIT/RAW_TP but I think the conflict should be manageable. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20201112211313.2587383-1-kafai@fb.com/
On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 13:57 -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > Test(s) is needed. e.g. iterating a bpf_sk_storage_map and also > calling bpf_sk_storage_get/delete. > > I would expect to see another test/example showing how it works end- > to-end to solve the problem you have in hand. > This patch probably belongs to a longer series. Fair point, I'll get that done, thank you! > BTW, I am also enabling bpf_sk_storage_(get|delete) for > FENTRY/FEXIT/RAW_TP but I think the conflict should be manageable. > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20201112211313.2587383-1-kafai@fb.com/ Thanks for the heads up, should be no problem :)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index e4515b0f62a8..3530120fa280 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ #include <linux/error-injection.h> #include <linux/btf_ids.h> +#include <net/bpf_sk_storage.h> + #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h> #include <uapi/linux/btf.h> @@ -1750,6 +1752,14 @@ tracing_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) NULL; case BPF_FUNC_d_path: return &bpf_d_path_proto; + case BPF_FUNC_sk_storage_get: + return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER ? + &bpf_sk_storage_get_proto : + NULL; + case BPF_FUNC_sk_storage_delete: + return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_ITER ? + &bpf_sk_storage_delete_proto : + NULL; default: return raw_tp_prog_func_proto(func_id, prog); }