Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: add BPF_MAP_DUMP command to dump more than one entry per call
From: Song Liu
Date: Wed Jul 24 2019 - 19:05:33 EST
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 2:40 PM Song Liu <liu.song.a23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:10 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This introduces a new command to retrieve multiple number of entries
> > > from a bpf map, wrapping the existing bpf methods:
> > > map_get_next_key and map_lookup_elem
> > >
> > > To start dumping the map from the beginning you must specify NULL as
> > > the prev_key.
> > >
> > > The new API returns 0 when it successfully copied all the elements
> > > requested or it copied less because there weren't more elements to
> > > retrieved (i.e err == -ENOENT). In last scenario err will be masked to 0.
> > >
> > > On a successful call buf and buf_len will contain correct data and in
> > > case prev_key was provided (not for the first walk, since prev_key is
> > > NULL) it will contain the last_key copied into the prev_key which will
> > > simplify next call.
> > >
> > > Only when it can't find a single element it will return -ENOENT meaning
> > > that the map has been entirely walked. When an error is return buf,
> > > buf_len and prev_key shouldn't be read nor used.
> > >
> > > Because maps can be called from userspace and kernel code, this function
> > > can have a scenario where the next_key was found but by the time we
> > > try to retrieve the value the element is not there, in this case the
> > > function continues and tries to get a new next_key value, skipping the
> > > deleted key. If at some point the function find itself trap in a loop,
> > > it will return -EINTR.
> > >
> > > The function will try to fit as much as possible in the buf provided and
> > > will return -EINVAL if buf_len is smaller than elem_size.
> > >
> > > QUEUE and STACK maps are not supported.
> > >
> > > Note that map_dump doesn't guarantee that reading the entire table is
> > > consistent since this function is always racing with kernel and user code
> > > but the same behaviour is found when the entire table is walked using
> > > the current interfaces: map_get_next_key + map_lookup_elem.
> > > It is also important to note that with a locked map, the lock is grabbed
> > > for 1 entry at the time, meaning that the returned buf might or might not
> > > be consistent.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 9 +++
> > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > index fa1c753dcdbc7..66dab5385170d 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ enum bpf_cmd {
> > > BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY,
> > > BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM,
> > > BPF_MAP_FREEZE,
> > > + BPF_MAP_DUMP,
> > > };
> > >
> > > enum bpf_map_type {
> > > @@ -388,6 +389,14 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > > __u64 flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > > + struct { /* struct used by BPF_MAP_DUMP command */
> > > + __aligned_u64 prev_key;
> > > + __aligned_u64 buf;
> > > + __aligned_u64 buf_len; /* input/output: len of buf */
> > > + __u64 flags;
> >
> > Please add explanation of flags here.
>
> got it!
>
> > Also, we need to update the
> > comments of BPF_F_LOCK for BPF_MAP_DUMP.
>
> What do you mean? I didn't get this part.
I meant, current comment says BPF_F_LOCK is for BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM.
But it is also used by BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_ELEM and BPF_MAP_DUMP. So
current comment is not accurate either.
Maybe fix it while you are on it?
>
> >
> > > + __u32 map_fd;
> > > + } dump;
> > > +
> > > struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_PROG_LOAD command */
> > > __u32 prog_type; /* one of enum bpf_prog_type */
> > > __u32 insn_cnt;
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > index 86cdc2f7bb56e..0c35505aa219f 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > @@ -1097,6 +1097,120 @@ static int map_get_next_key(union bpf_attr *attr)
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/* last field in 'union bpf_attr' used by this command */
> > > +#define BPF_MAP_DUMP_LAST_FIELD dump.map_fd
> > > +
> > > +static int map_dump(union bpf_attr *attr)
> > > +{
> > > + void __user *ukey = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->dump.prev_key);
> > > + void __user *ubuf = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->dump.buf);
> > > + u32 __user *ubuf_len = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->dump.buf_len);
> > > + int ufd = attr->dump.map_fd;
> > > + struct bpf_map *map;
> > > + void *buf, *prev_key, *key, *value;
> > > + u32 value_size, elem_size, buf_len, cp_len;
> > > + struct fd f;
> > > + int err;
> > > + bool first_key = false;
> > > +
> > > + if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_MAP_DUMP))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + if (attr->dump.flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + f = fdget(ufd);
> > > + map = __bpf_map_get(f);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(map))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(map);
> > > + if (!(map_get_sys_perms(map, f) & FMODE_CAN_READ)) {
> > > + err = -EPERM;
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if ((attr->dump.flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
> > > + !map_value_has_spin_lock(map)) {
> > > + err = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > + }
> >
> > We can share these lines with map_lookup_elem(). Maybe
> > add another helper function?
>
> Which are the lines you are referring to? the dump.flags? It makes
> sense so that way when a new flag is added you only need to modify
> them in one spot.
I think I misread it. attr->dump.flags is not same as attr->flags.
So never mind.
>
> > > +
> > > + if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_QUEUE ||
> > > + map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK) {
> > > + err = -ENOTSUPP;
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
> > > +
> > > + err = get_user(buf_len, ubuf_len);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > +
> > > + elem_size = map->key_size + value_size;
> > > + if (buf_len < elem_size) {
> > > + err = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (ukey) {
> > > + prev_key = __bpf_copy_key(ukey, map->key_size);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(prev_key)) {
> > > + err = PTR_ERR(prev_key);
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > + }
> > > + } else {
> > > + prev_key = NULL;
> > > + first_key = true;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + buf = kmalloc(elem_size, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > + if (!buf)
> > > + goto err_put;
> > > +
> > > + key = buf;
> > > + value = key + map->key_size;
> > > + for (cp_len = 0; cp_len + elem_size <= buf_len;) {
> > > + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > > + err = -EINTR;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + err = map->ops->map_get_next_key(map, prev_key, key);
> >
> > If prev_key is deleted before map_get_next_key(), we get the first key
> > again. This is pretty weird.
>
> Yes, I know. But note that the current scenario happens even for the
> old interface (imagine you are walking a map from userspace and you
> tried get_next_key the prev_key was removed, you will start again from
> the beginning without noticing it).
> I tried to sent a patch in the past but I was missing some context:
> before NULL was used to get the very first_key the interface relied in
> a random (non existent) key to retrieve the first_key in the map, and
> I was told what we still have to support that scenario.
BPF_MAP_DUMP is slightly different, as you may return the first key
multiple times in the same call. Also, BPF_MAP_DUMP is new, so we
don't have to support legacy scenarios.
Since BPF_MAP_DUMP keeps a list of elements. It is possible to try
to look up previous keys. Would something down this direction work?
Thanks,
Song