[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A11D2C64-DD12-4ECD-99E5-EE9558BB73A7@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 22:51:52 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"kpsingh@...omium.org" <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
"brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: separate bpf_get_[stack|stackid] for
perf events BPF
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 3:43 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:40 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>>
>> We only need to block precise_ip >= 2. precise_ip == 1 is OK.
>
> Are you sure?
> intel_pmu_hw_config() has:
> if (event->attr.precise_ip) {
> if (event->attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN)
> event->attr.sample_type |= __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY;
> }
The bit that breaks the unwinder was in setup_pebs_fixed_sample_data():
if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_format >= 2) {
set_linear_ip(regs, pebs->real_ip);
regs->flags |= PERF_EFLAGS_EXACT;
}
"real_ip" causes the issue.
But on a second thought, it is probably better also blocks precise_ip == 1,
to match the logic in intel_pmu_hw_config().
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists