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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 23:08:01 +0000
From:   Song Liu <>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <>
CC:     "" <>,
        Networking <>,
        "" <>,
        Kernel Team <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpf: sharing bpf runtime stats with

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Daniel Borkmann <> wrote:
>>> Hm, true as well. Wouldn't long-term extending "bpftool prog profile" fentry/fexit
>>> programs supersede this old bpf_stats infrastructure? Iow, can't we implement the
>>> same (or even more elaborate stats aggregation) in BPF via fentry/fexit and then
>>> potentially deprecate bpf_stats counters?
>> I think run_time_ns has its own value as a simple monitoring framework. We can
>> use it in tools like top (and variations). It will be easier for these tools to
>> adopt run_time_ns than using fentry/fexit.
> Agree that this is easier; I presume there is no such official integration today
> in tools like top, right, or is there anything planned?

Yes, we do want more supports in different tools to increase the visibility. 
Here is the effort for atop: .

I wasn't pushing push hard on this one mostly because the sysctl interface requires 
a user space "owner". 

>> On the other hand, in long term, we may include a few fentry/fexit based programs
>> in the kernel binary (or the rpm), so that these tools can use them easily. At
>> that time, we can fully deprecate run_time_ns. Maybe this is not too far away?
> Did you check how feasible it is to have something like `bpftool prog profile top`
> which then enables fentry/fexit for /all/ existing BPF programs in the system? It
> could then sort the sample interval by run_cnt, cycles, cache misses, aggregated
> runtime, etc in a top-like output. Wdyt?

I wonder whether we can achieve this with one bpf prog (or a trampoline) that covers
all BPF programs, like a trampoline inside __BPF_PROG_RUN()? 

For long term direction, I think we could compare two different approaches: add new 
tools (like bpftool prog profile top) vs. add BPF support to existing tools. The 
first approach is easier. The latter approach would show BPF information to users
who are not expecting BPF programs in the systems. For many sysadmins, seeing BPF
programs in top/ps, and controlling them via kill is more natural than learning
bpftool. What's your thought on this? 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists