netdev - Re: [RFC 00/13] kprobe/bpf: Add support to attach multiple kprobes

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]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLjjcsckQVqaSB8ODB4FKdVUt-PB9xyJ3FAa2GWGLbHgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 09:40:17 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...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>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/13] kprobe/bpf: Add support to attach multiple kprobes

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:59 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> That seems to bind your mind. The program type is just a programing
> 'model' of the bpf. You can choose the best implementation to provide
> equal functionality. 'kprobe' in bpf is just a name that you call some
> instrumentations which can probe kernel code.

No. We're not going to call it "fprobe" or any other name.
>From bpf user's pov it's going to be "multi attach kprobe",
because this is how everyone got to know kprobes.
The 99% usage is at the beginning of the funcs.
When users say "kprobe" they don't care how kernel attaches it.
The func entry limitation for "multi attach kprobe" is a no-brainer.

And we need both "multi attach kprobe" and "multi attach kretprobe"
at the same time. It's no go to implement one first and the other
some time later.