[xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/17] bpf: Introduce device-bound XDP programs

[Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 4:19 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/22 2:20 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > -int bpf_prog_offload_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> > +int bpf_prog_dev_bound_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> >   {
> >       struct bpf_offload_netdev *ondev;
> >       struct bpf_prog_offload *offload;
> > @@ -199,7 +197,7 @@ int bpf_prog_offload_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> >           attr->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -     if (attr->prog_flags)
> > +     if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> >       offload = kzalloc(sizeof(*offload), GFP_USER);
> > @@ -214,11 +212,23 @@ int bpf_prog_offload_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> >       if (err)
> >               goto err_maybe_put;
> >
> > +     prog->aux->offload_requested = !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY);
>
> Just noticed bpf_prog_dev_bound_init() takes BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS.  Not sure
> if there is device match check when attaching BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS.  If not,
> does it make sense to reject dev bound only BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS?

No, good point, I haven't added a device match check to tc progs; will
add a check here to reject dev-bound progs at tc.

> > +
> >       down_write(&bpf_devs_lock);
> >       ondev = bpf_offload_find_netdev(offload->netdev);
> >       if (!ondev) {
> > -             err = -EINVAL;
> > -             goto err_unlock;
> > +             if (bpf_prog_is_offloaded(prog->aux)) {
> > +                     err = -EINVAL;
> > +                     goto err_unlock;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             /* When only binding to the device, explicitly
> > +              * create an entry in the hashtable.
> > +              */
> > +             err = __bpf_offload_dev_netdev_register(NULL, offload->netdev);
> > +             if (err)
> > +                     goto err_unlock;
> > +             ondev = bpf_offload_find_netdev(offload->netdev);
> >       }
> >       offload->offdev = ondev->offdev;
> >       prog->aux->offload = offload;
> > @@ -321,12 +331,41 @@ bpf_prog_offload_remove_insns(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 off, u32 cnt)
> >       up_read(&bpf_devs_lock);
> >   }
> >
> > -void bpf_prog_offload_destroy(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > +static void __bpf_prog_dev_bound_destroy(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > +{
> > +     struct bpf_prog_offload *offload = prog->aux->offload;
> > +
> > +     if (offload->dev_state)
> > +             offload->offdev->ops->destroy(prog);
> > +
> > +     /* Make sure BPF_PROG_GET_NEXT_ID can't find this dead program */
> > +     bpf_prog_free_id(prog, true);
> > +
> > +     kfree(offload);
> > +     prog->aux->offload = NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void bpf_prog_dev_bound_destroy(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >   {
> > +     struct bpf_offload_netdev *ondev;
> > +     struct net_device *netdev;
> > +
> > +     rtnl_lock();
> >       down_write(&bpf_devs_lock);
> > -     if (prog->aux->offload)
> > -             __bpf_prog_offload_destroy(prog);
> > +     if (prog->aux->offload) {
> > +             list_del_init(&prog->aux->offload->offloads);
> > +
> > +             netdev = prog->aux->offload->netdev;
>
> After saving the netdev, would it work to call __bpf_prog_offload_destroy() here
> instead of creating an almost identical __bpf_prog_dev_bound_destroy().  The
> idea is to call list_del_init() first but does not need the "offload" around to
> do the __bpf_offload_dev_netdev_unregister()?

Good idea, that might work, let me try..

> > +             if (netdev) {

[..]

> I am thinking offload->netdev cannot be NULL.  Did I overlook places that reset
> offload->netdev back to NULL?  eg. In bpf_prog_offload_info_fill_ns(), it is not
> checking offload->netdev.
>
> > +                     ondev = bpf_offload_find_netdev(netdev);
>
> and ondev should not be NULL too?
>
> I am trying to ensure my understanding that all offload->netdev and ondev should
> be protected by bpf_devs_lock.

I think you're right and I'm just being overly cautious here.


> > +                     if (ondev && !ondev->offdev && list_empty(&ondev->progs))
> > +                             __bpf_offload_dev_netdev_unregister(NULL, netdev);
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             __bpf_prog_dev_bound_destroy(prog);
> > +     }
> >       up_write(&bpf_devs_lock);
> > +     rtnl_unlock();
> >   }
>