[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:45:41 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Hao Sun <sunhao.th@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: WARNING in bpf_bprintf_prepare
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:53:16AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
SNIP
> > > > > ---
> > > > > diff --git a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> > > > > index 6a13220d2d27..5a354ae096e5 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> > > > > @@ -78,11 +78,15 @@
> > > > > #define CAST_TO_U64(...) CONCATENATE(__CAST, COUNT_ARGS(__VA_ARGS__))(__VA_ARGS__)
> > > > >
> > > > > #define __BPF_DECLARE_TRACE(call, proto, args) \
> > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, __bpf_trace_tp_active_##call); \
> > > > > static notrace void \
> > > > > __bpf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto) \
> > > > > { \
> > > > > struct bpf_prog *prog = __data; \
> > > > > - CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(prog, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
> > > > > + \
> > > > > + if (likely(this_cpu_inc_return(__bpf_trace_tp_active_##call) == 1)) \
> > > > > + CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(prog, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
> > > > > + this_cpu_dec(__bpf_trace_tp_active_##call); \
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This approach will hurt real use cases where
> > > > multiple and different raw_tp progs run on the same cpu.
> > >
> > > would the 2 levels of nesting help in here?
> > >
> > > I can imagine the change above would break use case where we want to
> > > trigger tracepoints in irq context that interrupted task that's already
> > > in the same tracepoint
> > >
> > > with 2 levels of nesting we would trigger that tracepoint from irq and
> > > would still be safe with bpf_bprintf_prepare buffer
> >
> > How would these 2 levels work?
>
> just using the active counter like below, but I haven't tested it yet
>
> jirka
seems to be working
Hao Sun, could you please test this patch?
thanks,
jirka
>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> index 6a13220d2d27..ca5dd34478b7 100644
> --- a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> +++ b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
> @@ -78,11 +78,15 @@
> #define CAST_TO_U64(...) CONCATENATE(__CAST, COUNT_ARGS(__VA_ARGS__))(__VA_ARGS__)
>
> #define __BPF_DECLARE_TRACE(call, proto, args) \
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, __bpf_trace_tp_active_##call); \
> static notrace void \
> __bpf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto) \
> { \
> struct bpf_prog *prog = __data; \
> - CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(prog, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
> + \
> + if (likely(this_cpu_inc_return(__bpf_trace_tp_active_##call) < 3)) \
> + CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(prog, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
> + this_cpu_dec(__bpf_trace_tp_active_##call); \
> }
>
> #undef DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS
Powered by blists - more mailing lists