Message-ID: <1651771383.54437.1652370439159.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 11:47:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Primiano Tucci <primiano@...gle.com>
Subject: Feedback on user-events UAPI

Hi Beau,

I have queued a few questions I would like to discuss with respect to the proposed
user events UAPI. I originally planned to expand further on them, but I now think it's
best if I ask away right now and we clarify things through discussion:

First, I find it odd that the event enable bitmask and the event ID and payload
type registration must be combined. I can think of various use-cases where other
tracers would be interested to use the event-enable bitmask facility without
polluting the event ID/payload registration data structures with useless data.
Can those be split into two distinct independent ABIs ?

I can't help but notice that this new user-space instrumentation infrastructure/ABI
can only be used for tracing user-space through kernel tracers. Considering that
ABIs dictated by the kernel usually end up being de facto standards, I am concerned
that if it is unable to allow purely user-space tracers to use it, then all applications
will end up being statically instrumented in ways that prevent user-space tracers from
hooking efficiently on the static instrumentation. As I have replied in an earlier
thread, purely user-space tracers are not just marginally faster than kernel tracers
for tracing user-space. They are an order of magnitude faster as soon as all the proper
configuration steps are taken to ensure there are no system calls on the tracer
fast path. Therefore, it would be sad to effectively dismiss efficient tracer
implementations for the sake of easiness of implementation of today's user-event
ABI. This will cause a precedent we will be stuck with later.

Linux kernel developers involved in implementation of instrumentation within Linux
have spent a lot of effort to make sure the instrumentation is orthogonal to the
tracing technology (tracepoints, kprobe, kretprobe...). I understand that making
sure the user-space instrumentation ABI keeps this orthogonal is a lot more work,
but nobody said that exposing ABIs to user-space was easy. ;-)

The other point I would like to raise is container awareness. I can't help but
notice that the user events ABI is exposed to trace all containers, with the intent
to be used (consumed) from some privileged namespace (e.g. root pid namespace).
This works in use-cases where the user of the tracing data controls the entire
machine (all containers), but not so much if the user is a single tenant within
a multi-tenants systems. I would expect that a proper namespace-aware facility
would take care of making sure that a trace consumer could observe what is
instrumented within its own container, and within nested containers as well.
The fact that all container questions are entirely dismissed, thus keeping a
event-enable bitmask registry and event ID/type registry global to the entire
system, is not compatible with consuming traces from a non-privileged container,
and I suspect this may also be used as a side-channel to learn information about
what other containers are doing in a multi-tenant system.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists