Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/7] bpf: Introduce css open-coded iterator kfuncs

[Chuyi Zhou]

Hello,

在 2023/9/28 07:24, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 3:56 AM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This Patch adds kfuncs bpf_iter_css_{new,next,destroy} which allow
> > creation and manipulation of struct bpf_iter_css in open-coded iterator
> > style. These kfuncs actually wrapps css_next_descendant_{pre, post}.
> > css_iter can be used to:
> >
> > 1) iterating a sepcific cgroup tree with pre/post/up order
> >
> > 2) iterating cgroup_subsystem in BPF Prog, like
> > for_each_mem_cgroup_tree/cpuset_for_each_descendant_pre in kernel.
> >
> > The API design is consistent with cgroup_iter. bpf_iter_css_new accepts
> > parameters defining iteration order and starting css. Here we also reuse
> > BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE, BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST,
> > BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP enums.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   kernel/bpf/cgroup_iter.c                      | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
> >   kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |  3 +
> >   .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  6 ++
> >   3 files changed, 66 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup_iter.c
> > index 810378f04fbc..ebc3d9471f52 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup_iter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup_iter.c
> > @@ -294,3 +294,60 @@ static int __init bpf_cgroup_iter_init(void)
> >   }
> >
> >   late_initcall(bpf_cgroup_iter_init);
> > +
> > +struct bpf_iter_css {
> > +       __u64 __opaque[2];
> > +       __u32 __opaque_int[1];
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > +
>
> same as before, __opaque[3] only
>
>
> > +struct bpf_iter_css_kern {
> > +       struct cgroup_subsys_state *start;
> > +       struct cgroup_subsys_state *pos;
> > +       int order;
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_css_new(struct bpf_iter_css *it,
> > +               struct cgroup_subsys_state *start, enum bpf_cgroup_iter_order order)
>
> Similarly, I wonder if we should go for a more generic "flags" argument?
>
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_iter_css_kern *kit = (void *)it;
>
> empty line
>
> > +       kit->start = NULL;
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_css_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_css));
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_css_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_css));
>
> please move this up before kit->start assignment, and separate by empty lines
>
> > +       switch (order) {
> > +       case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE:
> > +       case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST:
> > +       case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP:
> > +               break;
> > +       default:
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       kit->start = start;
> > +       kit->pos = NULL;
> > +       kit->order = order;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +__bpf_kfunc struct cgroup_subsys_state *bpf_iter_css_next(struct bpf_iter_css *it)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_iter_css_kern *kit = (void *)it;
>
> empty line
>
> > +       if (!kit->start)
> > +               return NULL;
> > +
> > +       switch (kit->order) {
> > +       case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE:
> > +               kit->pos = css_next_descendant_pre(kit->pos, kit->start);
> > +               break;
> > +       case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST:
> > +               kit->pos = css_next_descendant_post(kit->pos, kit->start);
> > +               break;
> > +       default:
>
> we know it's BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP, so why not have that here explicitly?
>
> > +               kit->pos = kit->pos ? kit->pos->parent : kit->start;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return kit->pos;
>
> wouldn't this implementation never return the "start" css? is that intentional?

Thanks for the review.

This implementation actually would return the "start" css.

1. BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE:
1.1 when we first call next(), css_next_descendant_pre(NULL, kit->start) 
will return kit->start.
1.2 second call next(), css_next_descendant_pre(kit->start, kit->start) 
would return a first valid child under kit->start with pre-order
1.3 third call next, css_next_descendant_pre(last_valid_child, 
kit->start) would return the next valid child
...
util css_next_descendant_pre return a NULL pointer, which means we have 
visited all valid child including "start" css itself.

The above logic is equal to macro 'css_for_each_descendant_pre' in kernel.

Same, BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST is equal to macro 
'css_for_each_descendant_post' which would return 'start' css when we 
have visited all valid child.

2. BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP
2.1 when we fisrt call next(), kit->pos is NULL, and we would return 
kit->start.


The selftest in patch7 whould check:
1. when we use BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE to iterate a cgroup tree, 
the first cgroup we visted should be root('start') cgroup.
2. when we use BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST to iterate a cgroup 
tree, the last cgroup we visited should be root('start') cgroup.


Am I miss something important?


Thanks.