Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: Introduce task open coded iterator kfuncs

[Chuyi Zhou]

Hello, Andrii

在 2023/9/30 05:27, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 8:29 PM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > 在 2023/9/28 07:20, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 3:56 AM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > This patch adds kfuncs bpf_iter_task_{new,next,destroy} which allow
> > > > creation and manipulation of struct bpf_iter_task in open-coded iterator
> > > > style. BPF programs can use these kfuncs or through bpf_for_each macro to
> > > > iterate all processes in the system.
> > > >
> > > > The API design keep consistent with SEC("iter/task"). bpf_iter_task_new()
> > > > accepts a specific task and iterating type which allows:
> > > > 1. iterating all process in the system
> > > >
> > > > 2. iterating all threads in the system
> > > >
> > > > 3. iterating all threads of a specific task
> > > > Here we also resuse enum bpf_iter_task_type and rename BPF_TASK_ITER_TID
> > > > to BPF_TASK_ITER_THREAD, rename BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID to BPF_TASK_ITER_PROC.
> > > >
> > > > The newly-added struct bpf_iter_task has a name collision with a selftest
> > > > for the seq_file task iter's bpf skel, so the selftests/bpf/progs file is
> > > > renamed in order to avoid the collision.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    include/linux/bpf.h                           |  8 +-
> > > >    kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |  3 +
> > > >    kernel/bpf/task_iter.c                        | 96 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > >    .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  5 +
> > > >    .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c       | 18 ++--
> > > >    .../{bpf_iter_task.c => bpf_iter_tasks.c}     |  0
> > > >    6 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > >    rename tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/{bpf_iter_task.c => bpf_iter_tasks.c} (100%)


[...]

> > > > +get_next_task:
> > > > +       kit->pos = next_task(kit->pos);
> > > > +       kit->task = kit->pos;
> > > > +       if (kit->pos == &init_task)
> > > > +               kit->pos = NULL;
> > >
> > > I can't say I completely follow the logic (e.g., for
> > > BPF_TASK_ITER_PROC, why do we do next_task() on first next() call)?
> > > Can you elabore the expected behavior for various combinations of
> > > types and starting task argument?
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > The expected behavior of current implementation is:
> >
> > BPF_TASK_ITER_PROC:
> >
> > init_task->first_process->second_process->...->last_process->init_task
> >
> > We would exit before visiting init_task again.
>
> ah, ok, so in this case it's more like BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_PROCS, i.e.,
> we iterate all processes in the system. Input `task` that we provide
> is ignored/meaningless, right? Maybe we should express it as
> ALL_PROCS?
>
> > BPF_TASK_ITER_THREAD:
> >
> > group_task->first_thread->second_thread->...->last_thread->group_task
> >
> > We would exit before visiting group_task again.
>
> And this one is iterating threads of a process specified by given
> `task`, right?   This is where my confusion comes from. ITER_PROC and
> ITER_THREAD, by their name, seems to be very similar, but in reality
> ITER_PROC is more like ITER_ALL (except process vs thread iteration),
> while ITER_THREAD is parameterized by input `task`.
>
> I'm not sure what's the least confusing way to name and organize
> everything, but I think it's quite confusing right now, unfortunately.
> I wonder if you or someone else have a better suggestion on making
> this more straightforward?

Maybe here we can introduce new enums and not reuse or rename 
BPF_TASK_ITER_TID/BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID?

{
BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_PROC,
BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_THREAD,
BPF_TASK_ITER_THREAD
}

BPF_TASK_ITER_TID/BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID are inner flags. Looking at the
example usage of SEC("iter/task"), unlike 
BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE/BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST, we 
actually don't use BPF_TASK_ITER_TID/BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID directly. When 
using SEC("iter/task"), we just set pid/tid for struct 
bpf_iter_link_info. Exposing new enums to users for open coded 
task_iters will not confuse users.

Thanks.