On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 17:26, Samuel Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 8:02 AM Alexei Starovoitov > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 7:54 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 13:20, Puranjay Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Samuel Wu <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > > > This patchset adds requisite kfuncs for BPF programs to safely > > > > > traverse > > > > > wakeup_sources, and puts a config flag around the sysfs interface. > > > > > > > > > > Currently, a traversal of wakeup sources require going through > > > > > /sys/class/wakeup/* or /d/wakeup_sources/*. The repeated syscalls to > > > > > query > > > > > sysfs is inefficient, as there can be hundreds of wakeup_sources, > > > > > with each > > > > > wakeup source also having multiple attributes. debugfs is unstable and > > > > > insecure. > > > > > > > > > > Adding kfuncs to lock/unlock wakeup sources allows BPF program to > > > > > safely > > > > > traverse the wakeup sources list. The head address of wakeup_sources > > > > > can > > > > > safely be resolved through BPF helper functions or variable > > > > > attributes. > > > > > > > > > > On a quiescent Pixel 6 traversing 150 wakeup_sources, I am seeing ~34x > > > > > speedup (sampled 75 times in table below). For a device under load, > > > > > the > > > > > speedup is greater. > > > > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > > > > | | n | AVG (ms) | STD (ms) | > > > > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > > > > | sysfs | 75 | 44.9 | 12.6 | > > > > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > > > > | BPF | 75 | 1.3 | 0.7 | > > > > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > > > > > > > > > The initial attempts for BPF traversal of wakeup_sources was with BPF > > > > > iterators [1]. However, BPF already allows for traversing of a simple > > > > > list > > > > > with bpf_for(), and this current patchset has the added benefit of > > > > > being > > > > > ~2-3x more performant than BPF iterators. > > > > > > > > I left some inline comments on patch 1, but the high level concern is > > > > that encoding the SRCU index into a fake pointer to get KF_ACQUIRE/ > > > > KF_RELEASE tracking is working against the verifier rather than with it. > > > > Nothing actually prevents a BPF program from walking the list without > > > > the lock, and the whole pointer encoding trick goes away if this is done > > > > as an open-coded iterator instead. > > > > > > Which is fine, the critical section is only doing CO-RE accesses, and > > > the SRCU lock is just to be able to read things in a valid state while > > > walking the list. It is all best-effort. > > > Open coded iterators was already explored as an option in earlier > > > iterations of the series and discarded as no-go. > > > > kinda best-effort... > > the way it's written bpf_wakeup_sources_get_head() returns > > trusted list_head. It's then core-read-ed anyway. > > Ideally it should be trusted only within that srcu CS > > and invalidated by the verifier similar to KF_RCU_PROTECTED, > > but that's bigger task. > > Instead let's make bpf_wakeup_sources_get_head() return 'void *', > > so it's clearly untrusted. > > Thanks all for the fruitful discussion; this is more rigorous. I'll > update v3 so that `bpf_wakeup_sources_get_head()`'s return type is > `void *` and I can add a corresponding selftest that directly > dereferences the head and expects a verifier failure.
You could also use bpf_core_cast() instead of using macros to read every field, should be equivalent. You may still need the macros for bitfields but it should work otherwise.
