netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 09/29] bpf: Add support to load multi func tracing program

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:51:36 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 09/29] bpf: Add support to load multi func
 tracing program

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:15 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 08:11:59PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:24:35PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > +
> > > +DEFINE_BPF_MULTI_FUNC(unsigned long a1, unsigned long a2,
> > > +                 unsigned long a3, unsigned long a4,
> > > +                 unsigned long a5, unsigned long a6)
> >
> > This is probably a bit too x86 specific. May be make add all 12 args?
> > Or other places would need to be tweaked?
>
> I think si, I'll check
>
> >
> > > +BTF_ID_LIST_SINGLE(bpf_multi_func_btf_id, func, bpf_multi_func)
> > ...
> > > -   prog->aux->attach_btf_id = attr->attach_btf_id;
> > > +   prog->aux->attach_btf_id = multi_func ? bpf_multi_func_btf_id[0] : attr->attach_btf_id;
> >
> > Just ignoring that was passed in uattr?
> > Maybe instead of ignoring dopr BPF_F_MULTI_FUNC and make libbpf
> > point to that btf_id instead?
> > Then multi or not can be checked with if (attr->attach_btf_id == bpf_multi_func_btf_id[0]).
> >
>
> nice idea, it might fit better than the flag

Instead of a flag we can also use a different expected_attach_type
(FENTRY vs FENTRY_MULTI, etc). As for attach_btf_id, why can't we just
enforce it as 0?

>
> thanks,
> jirka
>