From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/8] bpftool: Show probed function in kprobe_multi link info
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 11:16:20 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALOAHbAJscwrQthOSaYvqkmB2tOkkO2txXbTvZ9WvaBpAa39XA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <313a276f-aab9-42ed-e835-32261c25bb39@isovalent.com>
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 7:16 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> wrote:
>
> 2023-05-28 14:20 UTC+0000 ~ Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> > Show the already expose kprobe_multi link info in bpftool. The result as
> > follows,
> >
> > $ bpftool link show
> > 2: kprobe_multi prog 11
> > func_cnt 4 addrs ffffffffaad475c0 ffffffffaad47600
> > ffffffffaad47640 ffffffffaad47680
> > pids trace(10936)
> >
> > $ bpftool link show -j
> > [{"id":1,"type":"perf_event","prog_id":5,"bpf_cookie":0,"pids":[{"pid":10658,"comm":"trace"}]},{"id":2,"type":"kprobe_multi","prog_id":11,"func_cnt":4,"addrs":[18446744072280634816,18446744072280634880,18446744072280634944,18446744072280635008],"pids":[{"pid":10936,"comm":"trace"}]},{"id":120,"type":"iter","prog_id":266,"target_name":"bpf_map"},{"id":121,"type":"iter","prog_id":267,"target_name":"bpf_prog"}]
> >
> > $ bpftool link show | grep -A 1 "func_cnt" | \
> > awk '{if (NR == 1) {print $4; print $5;} else {print $1; print $2} }' | \
> > awk '{"grep " $1 " /proc/kallsyms" | getline f; print f;}'
> > ffffffffaad475c0 T schedule_timeout_interruptible
> > ffffffffaad47600 T schedule_timeout_killable
> > ffffffffaad47640 T schedule_timeout_uninterruptible
> > ffffffffaad47680 T schedule_timeout_idle
>
> Looks nice, thank you!
>
> The address is a useful addition, but I feel like most of the time, this
> is the actual function name that we'd like to see. We could maybe print
> it directly in bpftool, what do you think? We already parse
> /proc/kallsyms elsewhere (to get the address of __bpf_call_base()). If
> we can parse the file only once for all func_cnt function, the overhead
> is maybe acceptable?
>
Thanks for your suggestion. Will change it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> > index 2d78607..76f1bb2 100644
> > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> > @@ -218,6 +218,20 @@ static int show_link_close_json(int fd, struct bpf_link_info *info)
> > jsonw_uint_field(json_wtr, "map_id",
> > info->struct_ops.map_id);
> > break;
> > + case BPF_LINK_TYPE_KPROBE_MULTI:
> > + const __u64 *addrs;
> > + __u32 i;
> > +
> > + jsonw_uint_field(json_wtr, "func_cnt", info->kprobe_multi.count);
> > + if (!info->kprobe_multi.count)
> > + break;
>
> I'd as well avoid having conditional entries in the JSON output. Let's
> just keep 0 and empty array in this case?
>
Will do it.
> > + jsonw_name(json_wtr, "addrs");
> > + jsonw_start_array(json_wtr);
> > + addrs = (const __u64 *)u64_to_ptr(info->kprobe_multi.addrs);
> > + for (i = 0; i < info->kprobe_multi.count; i++)
> > + jsonw_lluint(json_wtr, addrs[i]);
> > + jsonw_end_array(json_wtr);
> > + break;
> > default:
> > break;
> > }
> > @@ -396,6 +410,24 @@ static int show_link_close_plain(int fd, struct bpf_link_info *info)
> > case BPF_LINK_TYPE_NETFILTER:
> > netfilter_dump_plain(info);
> > break;
> > + case BPF_LINK_TYPE_KPROBE_MULTI:
> > + __u32 indent, cnt, i;
> > + const __u64 *addrs;
> > +
> > + cnt = info->kprobe_multi.count;
> > + if (!cnt)
> > + break;
> > + printf("\n\tfunc_cnt %d addrs", cnt);
> > + for (i = 0; cnt; i++)
> > + cnt /= 10;
> > + indent = strlen("func_cnt ") + i + strlen(" addrs");
> > + addrs = (const __u64 *)u64_to_ptr(info->kprobe_multi.addrs);
> > + for (i = 0; i < info->kprobe_multi.count; i++) {
> > + if (i && !(i & 0x1))
> > + printf("\n\t%*s", indent, "");
> > + printf(" %0*llx", 16, addrs[i]);
> > + }
> > + break;
> > default:
> > break;
> > }
> > @@ -417,7 +449,9 @@ static int do_show_link(int fd)
> > {
> > struct bpf_link_info info;
> > __u32 len = sizeof(info);
> > + __u64 *addrs = NULL;
> > char buf[256];
> > + int count;
> > int err;
> >
> > memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
> > @@ -441,12 +475,28 @@ static int do_show_link(int fd)
> > info.iter.target_name_len = sizeof(buf);
> > goto again;
> > }
> > + if (info.type == BPF_LINK_TYPE_KPROBE_MULTI &&
> > + !info.kprobe_multi.addrs) {
> > + count = info.kprobe_multi.count;
> > + if (count) {
> > + addrs = malloc(count * sizeof(__u64));
>
> Nit: calloc() instead?
Good point. Will do it.
>
> > + if (!addrs) {
> > + p_err("mem alloc failed");
> > + close(fd);
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + info.kprobe_multi.addrs = (unsigned long)addrs;
> > + goto again;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > if (json_output)
> > show_link_close_json(fd, &info);
> > else
> > show_link_close_plain(fd, &info);
> >
> > + if (addrs)
> > + free(addrs);
> > close(fd);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> The other bpftool patch (perf_event link) looks good to me.
>
Thanks for your review.
--
Regards
Yafang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-31 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-28 14:20 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/8] bpf: Support ->show_fdinfo and ->fill_link_info for kprobe prog Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/8] bpf: Support ->show_fdinfo for kprobe_multi Yafang Shao
2023-05-29 12:06 ` Jiri Olsa
2023-05-30 1:39 ` Yafang Shao
2023-05-31 0:28 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-05-31 3:14 ` Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/8] bpf: Support ->fill_link_info " Yafang Shao
2023-05-29 12:49 ` Jiri Olsa
2023-05-30 1:41 ` Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/8] bpftool: Show probed function in kprobe_multi link info Yafang Shao
2023-05-30 11:15 ` Quentin Monnet
2023-05-31 3:16 ` Yafang Shao [this message]
2023-05-31 0:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-05-31 3:17 ` Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/8] bpf: Always expose the probed address Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 5/8] bpf: Support ->show_fdinfo for perf_event Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 6/8] bpf: Add a common helper bpf_copy_to_user() Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 7/8] bpf: Support ->fill_link_info for perf_event Yafang Shao
2023-05-31 0:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-05-31 3:24 ` Yafang Shao
2023-05-28 14:20 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 8/8] bpftool: Show probed function in perf_event link info Yafang Shao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALOAHbAJscwrQthOSaYvqkmB2tOkkO2txXbTvZ9WvaBpAa39XA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=quentin@isovalent.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).