[PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Make bpf inode storage available to tracing program

[Amir Goldstein]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:21 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-11-15 at 17:35 +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > > On Nov 15, 2024, at 3:19 AM, Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > AFAICT, we need to modify how lsm blob are managed with
> > > > CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL=y && CONFIG_BPF_LSM=n case. The solution, even
> > > > if it gets accepted, doesn't really save any memory. Instead of
> > > > growing struct inode by 8 bytes, the solution will allocate 8
> > > > more bytes to inode->i_security. So the total memory consumption
> > > > is the same, but the memory is more fragmented.
> > >
> > > I guess you've found a better solution for this based on James' suggestion.
> > >
> > > > Therefore, I think we should really step back and consider adding
> > > > the i_bpf_storage to struct inode. While this does increase the
> > > > size of struct inode by 8 bytes, it may end up with less overall
> > > > memory consumption for the system. This is why.
> > > >
> > > > When the user cannot use inode local storage, the alternative is
> > > > to use hash maps (use inode pointer as key). AFAICT, all hash maps
> > > > comes with non-trivial overhead, in memory consumption, in access
> > > > latency, and in extra code to manage the memory. OTOH, inode local
> > > > storage doesn't have these issue, and is usually much more efficient:
> > > > - memory is only allocated for inodes with actual data,
> > > > - O(1) latency,
> > > > - per inode data is freed automatically when the inode is evicted.
> > > > Please refer to [1] where Amir mentioned all the work needed to
> > > > properly manage a hash map, and I explained why we don't need to
> > > > worry about these with inode local storage.
> > >
> > > Well, but here you are speaking of a situation where bpf inode storage
> > > space gets actually used for most inodes. Then I agree i_bpf_storage is the
> > > most economic solution. But I'd also expect that for vast majority of
> > > systems the bpf inode storage isn't used at all and if it does get used, it
> > > is used only for a small fraction of inodes. So we are weighting 8 bytes
> > > per inode for all those users that don't need it against more significant
> > > memory savings for users that actually do need per inode bpf storage. A
> > > factor in this is that a lot of people are running some distribution kernel
> > > which generally enables most config options that are at least somewhat
> > > useful. So hiding the cost behind CONFIG_FOO doesn't really help such
> > > people.
> >
> > Agreed that an extra pointer will be used if there is no actual users
> > of it. However, in longer term, "most users do not use bpf inode
> > storage" may not be true. As kernel engineers, we may not always notice
> > when user space is using some BPF features. For example, systemd has
> > a BPF LSM program "restrict_filesystems" [1]. It is enabled if the
> > user have lsm=bpf in kernel args. I personally noticed it as a
> > surprise when we enabled lsm=bpf.
> >
> > > I'm personally not *so* hung up about a pointer in struct inode but I can
> > > see why Christian is and I agree adding a pointer there isn't a win for
> > > everybody.
> >
> > I can also understand Christian's motivation. However, I am a bit
> > frustrated because similar approach (adding a pointer to the struct)
> > worked fine for other popular data structures: task_struct, sock,
> > cgroup.
> >
>
> There are (usually) a lot more inodes on a host than all of those other
> structs combined. Worse, struct inode is often embedded in other
> structs, and adding fields can cause alignment problems there.
>
>
> > > Longer term, I think it may be beneficial to come up with a way to attach
> > > private info to the inode in a way that doesn't cost us one pointer per
> > > funcionality that may possibly attach info to the inode. We already have
> > > i_crypt_info, i_verity_info, i_flctx, i_security, etc. It's always a tough
> > > call where the space overhead for everybody is worth the runtime &
> > > complexity overhead for users using the functionality...
> >
> > It does seem to be the right long term solution, and I am willing to
> > work on it. However, I would really appreciate some positive feedback
> > on the idea, so that I have better confidence my weeks of work has a
> > better chance to worth it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Song
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/src/core/bpf/restrict_fs/restrict-fs.bpf.c
>
> fsnotify is somewhat similar to file locking in that few inodes on the
> machine actually utilize these fields.
>
> For file locking, we allocate and populate the inode->i_flctx field on
> an as-needed basis. The kernel then hangs on to that struct until the
> inode is freed. We could do something similar here. We have this now:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FSNOTIFY
>         __u32                   i_fsnotify_mask; /* all events this inode cares about */
>         /* 32-bit hole reserved for expanding i_fsnotify_mask */
>         struct fsnotify_mark_connector __rcu    *i_fsnotify_marks;
> #endif
>
> What if you were to turn these fields into a pointer to a new struct:
>
>         struct fsnotify_inode_context {
>                 struct fsnotify_mark_connector __rcu    *i_fsnotify_marks;
>                 struct bpf_local_storage __rcu          *i_bpf_storage;
>                 __u32                                   i_fsnotify_mask; /* all events this inode cares about */
>         };
>

The extra indirection is going to hurt for i_fsnotify_mask
it is being accessed frequently in fsnotify hooks, so I wouldn't move it
into a container, but it could be moved to the hole after i_state.

> Then whenever you have to populate any of these fields, you just
> allocate one of these structs and set the inode up to point to it.
> They're tiny too, so don't bother freeing it until the inode is
> deallocated.
>
> It'd mean rejiggering a fair bit of fsnotify code, but it would give
> the fsnotify code an easier way to expand per-inode info in the future.
> It would also slightly shrink struct inode too.

This was already done for s_fsnotify_marks, so you can follow the recipe
of 07a3b8d0bf72 ("fsnotify: lazy attach fsnotify_sb_info state to sb")
and create an fsnotify_inode_info container.

Thanks,
Amir.