linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 2/3] perf: Refactor get_perf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bb62bd4f-199e-4907-817f-bc820c9198c9@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:16:00 +0800
From: Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
 namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
 adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, song@...nel.org,
 ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
 haoluo@...gle.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 2/3] perf: Refactor get_perf_callchain

在 2026/2/4 09:08, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 11:45 PM Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>>  From BPF stack map, we want to ensure that the callchain buffer
>> will not be overwritten by other preemptive tasks and we also aim
>> to reduce the preempt disable interval, Based on the suggestions from Peter
>> and Andrrii, export new API __get_perf_callchain and the usage scenarios
>> are as follows from BPF side:
>>
>> preempt_disable()
>> entry = get_callchain_entry()
>> preempt_enable()
>> __get_perf_callchain(entry)
>> put_callchain_entry(entry)
>>
>> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/perf_event.h |  5 +++++
>>   kernel/events/callchain.c  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>   2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Looking at the whole __bpf_get_stack() logic again, why didn't we just
> do something like this:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> index da3d328f5c15..80364561611c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/stackmap.c
> @@ -460,8 +460,8 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs,
> struct task_struct *task,
> 
>          max_depth = stack_map_calculate_max_depth(size, elem_size, flags);
> 
> -       if (may_fault)
> -               rcu_read_lock(); /* need RCU for perf's callchain below */
> +       if (!trace_in)
> +               preempt_disable();
> 
>          if (trace_in) {
>                  trace = trace_in;
> @@ -474,8 +474,8 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs,
> struct task_struct *task,
>          }
> 
>          if (unlikely(!trace) || trace->nr < skip) {
> -               if (may_fault)
> -                       rcu_read_unlock();
> +               if (!trace_in)
> +                       preempt_enable();
>                  goto err_fault;
>          }
> 
> @@ -494,8 +494,8 @@ static long __bpf_get_stack(struct pt_regs *regs,
> struct task_struct *task,
>          }
> 
>          /* trace/ips should not be dereferenced after this point */
> -       if (may_fault)
> -               rcu_read_unlock();
> +       if (!trace_in)
> +               preempt_enable();
> 
>          if (user_build_id)
>                  stack_map_get_build_id_offset(buf, trace_nr, user, may_fault);
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Build ID parsing is happening after we copied data from perf's
> callchain_entry into user-provided memory, so raw callchain retrieval
> can be done with preemption disabled, as it's supposed to be brief.
> Build ID parsing part which indeed might fault and be much slower will
> be done well after that (we even have a comment there saying that
> trace/ips should not be touched).
> 
> Am I missing something?

Yes it looks good for bpf_get_stack, and I also proposed a similar 
change previously. But Alexei suggested that we should reduce the 
preemption-disabled section protected in bpf_get_stackid if we do like 
bpf_get_stack. Maybe we can change it first for bpf_get_stack?

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250922075333.1452803-1-chen.dylane@linux.dev/

> 
> [...]


-- 
Best Regards
Tao Chen