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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKQw+K2CoCW-nA=bngKtjP495wpB1yhEXNjKg4wSeXAWg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:22:32 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: Add eBPF interface for user_event created events On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:34 AM Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > But you are fine with uprobe costs? uprobes appear to be much more costly > > > than a syscall approach on the hardware I've run on. Care to share the numbers? uprobe over USDT is a single trap. Not much slower compared to syscall with kpti. > > > > Can we achieve the same/similar performance with sys_bpf(BPF_PROG_RUN)? > > > > I think so, the tough part is how do you let the user-space know which > program is attached to run? In the current code this is done by the BPF > program attaching to the event via perf and we run the one there if > any when data is emitted out via write calls. > > I would want to make sure that operators can decide where the user-space > data goes (perf/ftrace/eBPF) after the code has been written. With the > current code this is done via the tracepoint callbacks that perf/ftrace > hook up when operators enable recording via perf, tracefs, libbpf, etc. > > We have managed code (C#/Java) where we cannot utilize stubs or traps > easily due to code movement. So we are limited in how we can approach > this problem. Having the interface be mmap/write has enabled this > for us, since it's easy to interact with in most languages and gives us > lifetime management of the trace objects between user-space and the > kernel. Then you should probably invest into making USDT work inside java applications instead of reinventing the wheel. As an alternative you can do a dummy write or any other syscall and attach bpf on the kernel side. No kernel changes are necessary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists