[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABRcYm+-tBmM1sUMozPaa8fBfRFhTNpTNtwT5z6xz0nsZA=P0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 17:47:03 +0200
From: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] bpf/btf: Add a function to search a member of a struct/union
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 3:56 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:40:54 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:21:46 +0900
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Then use kprobes. When I asked Masami what the difference between fprobes
> > > > and kprobes was, he told me that it would be that it would no longer rely
> > > > on the slower FTRACE_WITH_REGS. But currently, it still does.
> > >
> > > kprobes needs to keep using pt_regs because software-breakpoint exception
> > > handler gets that. And fprobe is used for bpf multi-kprobe interface,
> > > but I think it can be optional.
> > >
> > > So until user-land tool supports the ftrace_regs, you can just disable
> > > using fprobes if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS=n
> >
> > I'm confused. I asked about the difference between kprobes on ftrace
> > and fprobes, and you said it was to get rid of the requirement of
> > FTRACE_WITH_REGS.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230120205535.98998636329ca4d5f8325bc3@kernel.org/
>
> Yes, it is for enabling fprobe (and fprobe-event) on more architectures.
> I don't think it's possible to change everything at once. So, it will be
> changed step by step. At the first step, I will replace pt_regs with
> ftrace_regs, and make bpf_trace.c and fprobe_event depends on
> FTRACE_WITH_REGS.
>
> At this point, we can split the problem into two, how to move bpf on
> ftrace_regs and how to move fprobe-event on ftrace_regs. fprobe-event
> change is not hard because it is closing in the kernel and I can do it.
> But for BPF, I need to ask BPF user-land tools to support ftrace_regs.
Ah! I finally found the branch where I had pushed my proof of concept
of fprobe with ftrace_regs... it's a few months old and I didn't get
it in a state such that it could be sent to the list but maybe this
can save you a little bit of lead time Masami :) (especially the bpf
and arm64 specific bits)
https://github.com/FlorentRevest/linux/commits/bpf-arm-complete
08afb628c6e1 ("ftrace: Add a macro to forge an incomplete pt_regs from
a ftrace_regs")
203e96fe1790 ("fprobe, rethook: Use struct ftrace_regs instead of
struct pt_regs")
1a9e280b9b16 ("arm64,rethook,kprobes: Replace kretprobe with rethook on arm64")
7751c6db9f9d ("bpf: Fix bpf get_func_ip() on arm64 multi-kprobe programs")
a10c49c0d717 ("selftests/bpf: Update the tests deny list on aarch64")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists