On 11/20, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 11/21/2018 12:04 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >> On 11/20, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:46:25PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > >>>> [Recent commit 23499442c319 ("bpf: libbpf: retry map creation without
> > >>>> the name") fixed this issue for maps, let's do the same for programs.]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since commit 88cda1c9da02 ("bpf: libbpf: Provide basic API support
> > >>>> to specify BPF obj name"), libbpf unconditionally sets bpf_attr->name
> > >>>> for programs. Pre v4.14 kernels don't know about programs names and
> > >>>> return an error about unexpected non-zero data. Retry sys_bpf without
> > >>>> a program name to cover older kernels.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > >>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > >>>> index 961e1b9fc592..cbe9d757c646 100644
> > >>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > >>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > >>>> @@ -212,6 +212,16 @@ int bpf_load_program_xattr(const struct
> > >>>> bpf_load_program_attr *load_attr,
> > >>>> if (fd >= 0 || !log_buf || !log_buf_sz)
> > >>>> return fd;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> + if (fd < 0 && errno == E2BIG && load_attr->name) {
> > >>>> + /* Retry the same syscall, but without the name.
> > >>>> + * Pre v4.14 kernels don't support prog names.
> > >>>> + */
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm afraid that will put unnecessary stress on the kernel.
> > >>> This check needs to be tighter.
> > >>> Like E2BIG and anything in the log_buf probably means that
> > >>> E2BIG came from the verifier and nothing to do with prog_name.
> > >>> Asking kernel to repeat is an unnecessary work.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general we need to think beyond this single prog_name field.
> > >>> There are bunch of other fields in bpf_load_program_xattr() and older
> > >>> kernels
> > >>> won't support them. Are we going to zero them out one by one
> > >>> and retry? I don't think that would be practical.
> > >> I general, we don't want to zero anything out. However,
> > >> for this particular problem the rationale is the following:
> > >> In commit 88cda1c9da02 we started unconditionally setting
> > >> {prog,map}->name
> > >> from the 'higher' libbpfc layer which breaks users on the older kernels.
> > >>
> > >>> Also libbpf silently ignoring prog_name is not great for debugging.
> > >>> A warning is needed.
> > >>> But it cannot be done out of lib/bpf/bpf.c, since it's a set of syscall
> > >>> wrappers.
> > >>> Imo such "old kernel -> lets retry" feature should probably be done
> > >>> at lib/bpf/libbpf.c level. inside load_program().
> > >> For maps bpftools calls bpf_create_map_xattr directly, that's why
> > >> for maps I did the retry on the lower level (and why for programs I
> > >> initially
> > >> thought about doing the same). However, in this case maybe asking
> > >> user to omit 'name' argument might be a better option.
> > >>
> > >> For program names, I agree, we might think about doing it on the higher
> > >> level (although I'm not sure whether we want to have different API
> > >> expectations, i.e. bpf_create_map_xattr ignoring the name and
> > >> bpf_load_program_xattr not ignoring the name).
> > >>
> > >> So given that rationale above, what do you think is the best way to
> > >> move forward?
> > >> 1. Same patch, but tighten the retry check inside bpf_load_program_xattr
> > >> ?
> > >> 2. Move this retry logic into load_program and have different handling
> > >> for bpf_create_map_xattr vs bpf_load_program_xattr ?
> > >> 3. Do 2 and move the retry check for maps from bpf_create_map_xattr
> > >> into bpf_object__create_maps ?
> > >>
> > >> (I'm slightly leaning towards #3)
> > >
> > > me too. I think it's cleaner for maps to do it in
> > > bpf_object__create_maps().
> > > Originally bpf.c was envisioned to be a thin layer on top of bpf syscall.
> > > Whereas 'smart bits' would go into libbpf.c
> >
> > Can't we create in bpf_object__load() a small helper
> > bpf_object__probe_caps()
> > which would figure this out _once_ upon start with a few things to probe for
> > availability in the underlying kernel for maps and programs? E.g. programs
> > it could try to inject a tiny 'r0 = 0; exit' snippet where we figure out
> > things like prog name support etc. Given underlying kernel doesn't change,
> > we
> > would only try this once and it doesn't require fallback every time.
>
> +1. great idea!
Sounds good, let me try to do it.
It sounds more like a recent LPC proposal/idea to have some sys_bpf option
to query BPF features. This new bpf_object__probe_caps can probably query
that in the future if we eventually add support for it.
