Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-123623-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240327-ccb56fc7a6e80136db80876c@djalal> <20240327225334.58474-1-tixxdz@gmail.com>
 <ZgWnPZtwBYfHEFzf@slm.duckdns.org> <CAADnVQK6BUGZFCATD8Ejcfob5sKK-b8HUD_4o8Q6s9FM72L4iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZgWv19ySvoACAll4@slm.duckdns.org> <CAADnVQLhWDcX-7XCdo-W=jthU=9iPqODwrE6c9fvU8sfAJ5ARg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZgXMww9kJiKi4Vmd@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZgXMww9kJiKi4Vmd@slm.duckdns.org>
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:45:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQK970_Nx3918V41ue031RkGs+WsteOAm6EJOY7oSwzS1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: freeze a task cgroup from bpf
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:02=E2=80=AFPM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for similar use cases. We =
can
> add interface for both but idk. Let's say we have something like the
> following (pardon the bad naming):
>
>   bpf_cgroup_knob_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, char *filename, char *buf)
>
> Would that work? I'm not necessarily in love with the idea or against add=
ing
> separate helpers but the duplication still bothers me a bit.

I liked it.
So filename will be one of cgroup_base_files[].name ?
We probably don't want psi or cgroup1_base_files in there.

From the verifier pov 2nd arg can be "char *knob__str" and
the verifier will make sure it's a constant NULL terminated string,
so at runtime it will be easier to search cgroup_base_files array.
And 'buf' can be: void *mem, int mem__sz with kfunc doing
run-time validation that there a null there.