Graph traverse v2 #8877
Open
Graph traverse v2 #8877
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In a later patch, two new kfuncs will take the bpf_rb_node pointer arg.
struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_left(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
struct bpf_rb_node *node);
struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_right(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
struct bpf_rb_node *node);
In the check_kfunc_call, there is a "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE"
to check if the reg->type should be an allocated pointer or should be
a non_owning_ref.
The later patch will need to ensure that the bpf_rb_node pointer passing
to the new bpf_rbtree_{left,right} must be a non_owning_ref. This
should be the same requirement as the existing bpf_rbtree_remove.
This patch swaps the current "if else" statement. Instead of checking
the bpf_rbtree_remove, it checks the bpf_rbtree_add. Then the new
bpf_rbtree_{left,right} will fall into the "else" case to make
the later patch simpler. bpf_rbtree_add should be the only
one that needs an allocated pointer.
This should be a no-op change considering there are only two kfunc(s)
taking bpf_rb_node pointer arg, rbtree_add and rbtree_remove.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
…_node pointer
The current rbtree kfunc, bpf_rbtree_{first, remove}, returns the
bpf_rb_node pointer. The check_kfunc_call currently checks the
kfunc btf_id instead of its return pointer type to decide
if it needs to do mark_reg_graph_node(reg0) and ref_set_non_owning(reg0).
The later patch will add bpf_rbtree_{root,left,right} that will also
return a bpf_rb_node pointer. Instead of adding more kfunc btf_id
checks to the "if" case, this patch changes the test to check the
kfunc's return type. is_rbtree_node_type() function is added to
test if a pointer type is a bpf_rb_node. The callers have already
skipped the modifiers of the pointer type.
A note on the ref_set_non_owning(), although bpf_rbtree_remove()
also returns a bpf_rb_node pointer, the bpf_rbtree_remove()
has the KF_ACQUIRE flag. Thus, its reg0 will not become non-owning.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
In the kernel fq qdisc implementation, it requires to traverse a rbtree
stored with the networking "flows".
In the later bpf selftests prog, the much simplified logic that uses
the bpf_rbtree_{root,left,right} to traverse the tree is like:
struct fq_flow {
struct bpf_rb_node fq_node;
struct bpf_rb_node rate_node;
struct bpf_refcount refcount;
unsigned long sk_long;
};
struct fq_flow_root {
struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
struct bpf_rb_root root __contains(fq_flow, fq_node);
};
struct fq_flow *fq_classify(...)
{
struct bpf_rb_node *tofree[FQ_GC_MAX];
struct fq_flow_root *root;
struct fq_flow *gc_f, *f;
struct bpf_rb_node *p;
int i, fcnt = 0;
/* ... */
f = NULL;
bpf_spin_lock(&root->lock);
p = bpf_rbtree_root(&root->root);
while (can_loop) {
if (!p)
break;
gc_f = bpf_rb_entry(p, struct fq_flow, fq_node);
if (gc_f->sk_long == sk_long) {
f = bpf_refcount_acquire(gc_f);
break;
}
/* To be removed from the rbtree */
if (fcnt < FQ_GC_MAX && fq_gc_candidate(gc_f, jiffies_now))
tofree[fcnt++] = p;
if (gc_f->sk_long > sk_long)
p = bpf_rbtree_left(&root->root, p);
else
p = bpf_rbtree_right(&root->root, p);
}
/* remove from the rbtree */
for (i = 0; i < fcnt; i++) {
p = tofree[i];
tofree[i] = bpf_rbtree_remove(&root->root, p);
}
bpf_spin_unlock(&root->lock);
/* bpf_obj_drop the fq_flow(s) that have just been removed
* from the rbtree.
*/
for (i = 0; i < fcnt; i++) {
p = tofree[i];
if (p) {
gc_f = bpf_rb_entry(p, struct fq_flow, fq_node);
bpf_obj_drop(gc_f);
}
}
return f;
}
The above simplified code needs to traverse the rbtree for two purposes,
1) find the flow with the desired sk_long value
2) while searching for the sk_long, collect flows that are
the fq_gc_candidate. They will be removed from the rbtree.
This patch adds the bpf_rbtree_{root,left,right} kfunc to enable
the rbtree traversal. The returned bpf_rb_node pointer will be a
non-owning reference which is the same as the returned pointer
of the exisiting bpf_rbtree_first kfunc.
To avoid bisect failure, Some of the failure messages in the
rbtree_fail test are also adjusted together in this patch. The message
is now "bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer".
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
selftests/bpf: Adjust failure message in the rbtree_fail test
Some of the failure messages in the rbtree_fail test. The message
is now "bpf_rbtree_remove can only take non-owning bpf_rb_node pointer".
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
The bpf_rbtree_{remove,left,right} requires the root's lock to be held.
They also check the node_internal->owner is still owned by that root
before proceeding, so it is safe to allow refcounted bpf_rb_node
pointer to be used in these kfuncs.
In the later selftest, a networking flow (allocated by bpf_obj_new)
can be added to two different rbtrees. There are cases that the flow
is searched from one rbtree, held the refcount of the flow,
and then removed from the another rbtree:
struct fq_flow {
struct bpf_rb_node fq_node;
struct bpf_rb_node rate_node;
struct bpf_refcount refcount;
unsigned long sk_long;
};
int bpf_fq_enqueue(...)
{
/* ... */
bpf_spin_lock(&root->lock);
while (can_loop) {
/* ... */
if (!p)
break;
gc_f = bpf_rb_entry(p, struct fq_flow, fq_node);
if (gc_f->sk_long == sk_long) {
f = bpf_refcount_acquire(gc_f);
break;
}
/* ... */
}
bpf_spin_unlock(&root->lock);
if (f) {
bpf_spin_lock(&q->lock);
bpf_rbtree_remove(&q->delayed, &f->rate_node);
bpf_spin_unlock(&q->lock);
}
}
bpf_rbtree_{left,right} do not need this change but are relaxed together
with bpf_rbtree_remove instead of adding extra verifier logic
to exclude these kfuncs.
To avoid bi-sect failure, this patch also changes the selftests together:
First change, it does not expect a verifier's error now.
Second change, the test now expects bpf_rbtree_remove(&groot, &m->node)
to return NULL. The test uses __retval(0) to ensure this NULL
return value.
Some of the "only take non-owning..." failure messages are changed also.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
This patch has a much simplified rbtree usage from the
kernel sch_fq qdisc. It has a "struct node_data" which can be
added to two different rbtrees which are ordered by different keys.
The test first populates both rbtrees. Then search for a lookup_key
from the "groot0" rbtree. Once the lookup_key is found, that node
refcount is taken. The node is then removed from another "groot1"
rbtree.
While searching the lookup_key, the test will also try to remove
all rbnodes in the path leading to the lookup_key.
The test_{root,left,right}* tests ensure that the return value
of the bpf_rbtree functions is a non_own_ref node pointer.
This is done by forcing an verifier error by calling a helper
bpf_jiffies64() while holding the spinlock. The tests then
check for the verifier message
"call bpf_rbtree...R0=rcu_ptr_or_null_node..."
The other test_{root,left,right}* tests ensure that they must be
called with spinlock held.
Suggested-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]> # Check non_own_ref marking
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
…_node pointer
The next patch will add bpf_list_{front,back} kfuncs to peek the head
and tail of a list. Both of them will return a 'struct bpf_list_node *'.
Follow the earlier change for rbtree, this patch checks the
return btf type is a 'struct bpf_list_node' pointer instead
of checking each kfuncs individually to decide if
mark_reg_graph_node should be called. This will make
the bpf_list_{front,back} kfunc addition easier in
the later patch.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
In the kernel fq qdisc implementation, it only needs to look at
the fields of the first node in a list but does not always
need to remove it from the list. It is more convenient to have
a peek kfunc for the list. It works similar to the bpf_rbtree_first().
This patch adds bpf_list_{front,back} kfunc. The verifier is changed
such that the kfunc returning "struct bpf_list_node *" will be
marked as non-owning. The exception is the KF_ACQUIRE kfunc. The
net effect is only the new bpf_list_{front,back} kfuncs will
have its return pointer marked as non-owning.
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
This patch adds the "list_peek" test to use the new
bpf_list_{front,back} kfunc.
The test_{front,back}* tests ensure that the return value
is a non_own_ref node pointer and requires the spinlock to be held.
Suggested-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]> # check non_own_ref marking
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf
bot
force-pushed
the
bpf-net_base
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5d180f9 to
02c9bb8
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Run the new selftests with different compilers.