linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] libbpf: Add bpf_link

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYdSwPfiTmP-vBry23F7+vDR3Q+r0qwuQ3OaL09YjxUew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:11:16 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] libbpf: Add bpf_link_create support for multi kprobes

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:07 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Adding new kprobe_multi struct to bpf_link_create_opts object
> to pass multiple kprobe data to link_create attr uapi.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 7 +++++++
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 9 ++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> index 418b259166f8..5e180def2cef 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> @@ -853,6 +853,13 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd,
>                 if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, perf_event))
>                         return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>                 break;
> +       case BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI:
> +               attr.link_create.kprobe_multi.syms = OPTS_GET(opts, kprobe_multi.syms, 0);
> +               attr.link_create.kprobe_multi.addrs = OPTS_GET(opts, kprobe_multi.addrs, 0);
> +               attr.link_create.kprobe_multi.cookies = OPTS_GET(opts, kprobe_multi.cookies, 0);
> +               attr.link_create.kprobe_multi.cnt = OPTS_GET(opts, kprobe_multi.cnt, 0);
> +               attr.link_create.kprobe_multi.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, kprobe_multi.flags, 0);
> +               break;
>         default:
>                 if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, flags))
>                         return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> index 16b21757b8bf..bd285a8f3420 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> @@ -413,10 +413,17 @@ struct bpf_link_create_opts {
>                 struct {
>                         __u64 bpf_cookie;
>                 } perf_event;
> +               struct {
> +                       __u64 syms;
> +                       __u64 addrs;
> +                       __u64 cookies;

hm, I think we can and should use proper types here, no?

const char **syms;
const void **addrs;
const __u64 *cookies;

?




> +                       __u32 cnt;
> +                       __u32 flags;
> +               } kprobe_multi;
>         };
>         size_t :0;
>  };
> -#define bpf_link_create_opts__last_field perf_event
> +#define bpf_link_create_opts__last_field kprobe_multi.flags
>
>  LIBBPF_API int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd,
>                                enum bpf_attach_type attach_type,
> --
> 2.35.1
>