[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240807190809.cd316e7f813400a209aae72a@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 19:08:09 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
"live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Petr
Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>, Nathan
Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, "morbo@...gle.com" <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Luis Chamberlain
<mcgrof@...nel.org>, Leizhen <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
"kees@...nel.org" <kees@...nel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, Sami Tolvanen
<samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tracing/kprobes: Use APIs that matches symbols
without .XXX suffix
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 00:19:20 +0000
Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2024, at 5:01 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:12:55 +0000
> > Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 6, 2024, at 1:01 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:00:49 -0400
> >>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LTO_CLANG) && !addr)
> >>>>>>> + addr = kallsyms_lookup_name_without_suffix(trace_kprobe_symbol(tk));
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you do the lookup twice if this is enabled?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why not just use "kallsyms_lookup_name_without_suffix()" the entire time,
> >>>>>> and it should work just the same as "kallsyms_lookup_name()" if it's not
> >>>>>> needed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We still want to give priority to full match. For example, we have:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [root@~]# grep c_next /proc/kallsyms
> >>>>> ffffffff81419dc0 t c_next.llvm.7567888411731313343
> >>>>> ffffffff81680600 t c_next
> >>>>> ffffffff81854380 t c_next.llvm.14337844803752139461
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the goal is to explicitly trace c_next.llvm.7567888411731313343, the
> >>>>> user can provide the full name. If we always match _without_suffix, all
> >>>>> of the 3 will match to the first one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this make sense?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. Sorry, I missed the "&& !addr)" after the "IS_ENABLED()", which looked
> >>>> like you did the command twice.
> >>>
> >>> But that said, does this only have to be for llvm? Or should we do this for
> >>> even gcc? As I believe gcc can give strange symbols too.
> >>
> >> I think most of the issue comes with LTO, as LTO promotes local static
> >> functions to global functions. IIUC, we don't have GCC built, LTO enabled
> >> kernel yet.
> >>
> >> In my GCC built, we have suffixes like ".constprop.0", ".part.0", ".isra.0",
> >> and ".isra.0.cold". We didn't do anything about these before this set. So I
> >> think we are OK not handling them now. We sure can enable it for GCC built
> >> kernel in the future.
> >
> > Hmm, I think it should be handled as it is. This means it should do as
> > livepatch does. Since I expected user will check kallsyms if gets error,
> > we should keep this as it is. (if a symbol has suffix, it should accept
> > symbol with suffix, or user will get confused because they can not find
> > which symbol is kprobed.)
> >
> > Sorry about the conclusion (so I NAK this), but this is a good discussion.
>
> Do you mean we do not want patch 3/3, but would like to keep 1/3 and part
> of 2/3 (remove the _without_suffix APIs)? If this is the case, we are
> undoing the change by Sami in [1], and thus may break some tracing tools.
What tracing tools may be broke and why?
For this suffix problem, I would like to add another patch to allow probing on
suffixed symbols. (It seems suffixed symbols are not available at this point)
The problem is that the suffixed symbols maybe a "part" of the original function,
thus user has to carefully use it.
>
> Sami, could you please share your thoughts on this?
Sami, I would like to know what problem you have on kprobes.
Thank you,
>
> If this works, I will send next version with 1/3 and part of 2/3.
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210408182843.1754385-8-samitolvanen@google.com/
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists