Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:24:12PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Currently we don't allow re-attaching of trampolines. Once
> > it's detached, it can't be re-attach even when the program
> > is still loaded.
> >
> > Adding the possibility to re-attach the loaded tracing
> > kernel program.
> 
> Hmm, yeah, didn't really consider this case when I added the original
> disallow. But don't see why not, so (with one nit below):
> 
> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/syscall.c    | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> >  kernel/bpf/trampoline.c |  2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > index 9603de81811a..e14926b2e95a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > @@ -2645,14 +2645,27 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> >  	 *   target_btf_id using the link_create API.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * - if tgt_prog == NULL when this function was called using the old
> > -         *   raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> > -         *
> > -         * The combination of no saved target in prog->aux, and no target
> > -         * specified on load is illegal, and we reject that here.
> > +	 *   raw_tracepoint_open API, and we need a target from prog->aux
> > +	 *
> > +	 * The combination of no saved target in prog->aux, and no target
> > +	 * specified on is legal only for tracing programs re-attach, rest
> > +	 * is illegal, and we reject that here.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline && !tgt_prog) {
> > -		err = -ENOENT;
> > -		goto out_unlock;
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Allow re-attach for tracing programs, if it's currently
> > +		 * linked, bpf_trampoline_link_prog will fail.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) {
> > +			err = -ENOENT;
> > +			goto out_unlock;
> > +		}
> > +		if (!prog->aux->attach_btf) {
> > +			err = -EINVAL;
> > +			goto out_unlock;
> > +		}
> 
> I'm wondering about the two different return codes here. Under what
> circumstances will aux->attach_btf be NULL, and why is that not an
> ENOENT error? :)

right, that should be always there.. I'll remove it

thanks,
jirka