[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzaHAFNdEPp38ZnKOYTy3CfRCwaxDykS_Xir_VqDm0Kiug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 20:53:03 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: block bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on
perf_event with PEBS entries
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:30 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>
> Calling get_perf_callchain() on perf_events from PEBS entries may cause
> unwinder errors. To fix this issue, the callchain is fetched early. Such
> perf_events are marked with __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY.
>
> Similarly, calling bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on perf_events from PEBS may
> also cause unwinder errors. To fix this, block bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on
> these perf_events. Unfortunately, bpf verifier cannot tell whether the
> program will be attached to perf_event with PEBS entries. Therefore,
> block such programs during ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_BPF).
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> ---
Perhaps it's a stupid question, but why bpf_get_stack/bpf_get_stackid
can't figure out automatically that they are called from
__PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY perf event and use different callchain,
if necessary?
It is quite suboptimal from a user experience point of view to require
two different BPF helpers depending on PEBS or non-PEBS perf events.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists