Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200819224030.1615203-1-haoluo@google.com> <20200819224030.1615203-7-haoluo@google.com>
 <CAEf4BzZY2LyJvF9HCdAzHM7WG26GO0qqX=Wc6EiXArks=kmazA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEf4BzZ+uqE73tM6W1vXyc-hu6fB8B9ZNniq-XHYhFDjhHg9gA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZ+uqE73tM6W1vXyc-hu6fB8B9ZNniq-XHYhFDjhHg9gA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:49:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+khW7jQmdw-TZMnST_rBcQWmxZ_eVw4ja+nsrqCM9HSkeWaXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] bpf: Introduce bpf_per_cpu_ptr()
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:31 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:42 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add bpf_per_cpu_ptr() to help bpf programs access percpu vars.
> > > bpf_per_cpu_ptr() has the same semantic as per_cpu_ptr() in the kernel
> > > except that it may return NULL. This happens when the cpu parameter is
> > > out of range. So the caller must check the returned value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > The logic looks correct, few naming nits, but otherwise:
> >
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> >
> > >  include/linux/bpf.h      |  3 ++
> > >  include/linux/btf.h      | 11 +++++++
> > >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 +++++++++
> > >  kernel/bpf/btf.c         | 10 -------
> > >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c    | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 18 +++++++++++
> > >  6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
[...]
>
> btw, having bpf_this_cpu_ptr(const void *ptr) seems worthwhile as well, WDYT?
>

It's probably not a good idea, IMHO. How does it interact with
preemption? Should we treat it as __this_cpu_ptr()? If so, I feel it's
easy to be misused, if the bpf program is called in a preemptible
context.

Btw, is bpf programs always called with preemption disabled? How about
interrupts? I haven't thought about these questions before but I think
they matter as we start to have more ways for bpf programs to interact
with the kernel.

Best,
Hao