[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABRcYmKRAbOuqNQm5mCwC9NWbtcz1JJDYL_h5x6dK77SJ5FRkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:28:38 +0200
From: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] fprobe: Use fprobe_regs in fprobe entry handler
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48 AM Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
<mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
>
> This allows fprobes to be available with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
> instead of CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS, then we can enable fprobe
> on arm64.
This patch lets fprobe code build on configs WITH_ARGS and !WITH_REGS
but fprobe wouldn't run on these builds because fprobe still registers
to ftrace with FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS, which would fail on
!WITH_REGS. Shouldn't we also let the fprobe_init callers decide
whether they want REGS or not ?
> static int
> kprobe_multi_link_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long fentry_ip,
> - unsigned long ret_ip, struct pt_regs *regs,
> + unsigned long ret_ip, struct ftrace_regs *fregs,
> void *data)
> {
> struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link;
> + struct pt_regs *regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs);
> +
> + if (!regs)
> + return 0;
(with the above comment addressed) this means that BPF multi_kprobe
would successfully attach on builds WITH_ARGS but the programs would
never actually run because here regs would be 0. This is a confusing
failure mode for the user. I think that if multi_kprobe won't work
(because we don't have a pt_regs conversion path yet), the user should
be notified at attachment time that they won't be getting any events.
That's why I think kprobe_multi should inform fprobe_init that it
wants FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS and fail if that's not possible (no
trampoline for it for example)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists