From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] bpf: Add support to attach kprobe program with fprobe
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:59:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZYepTYLN6LrPAAaOXUtCBv07bQQJzgarntu03L+cj2GQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220202135333.190761-2-jolsa@kernel.org>
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:53 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Adding new link type BPF_LINK_TYPE_FPROBE that attaches kprobe program
> through fprobe API.
>
> The fprobe API allows to attach probe on multiple functions at once very
> fast, because it works on top of ftrace. On the other hand this limits
> the probe point to the function entry or return.
>
> The kprobe program gets the same pt_regs input ctx as when it's attached
> through the perf API.
>
> Adding new attach type BPF_TRACE_FPROBE that enables such link for kprobe
> program.
>
> User provides array of addresses or symbols with count to attach the kprobe
> program to. The new link_create uapi interface looks like:
>
> struct {
> __aligned_u64 syms;
> __aligned_u64 addrs;
> __u32 cnt;
> __u32 flags;
> } fprobe;
>
> The flags field allows single BPF_F_FPROBE_RETURN bit to create return fprobe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf_types.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 13 ++
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 13 ++
> 4 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
[...]
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FPROBE
> +
> +struct bpf_fprobe_link {
> + struct bpf_link link;
> + struct fprobe fp;
> + unsigned long *addrs;
> +};
> +
> +static void bpf_fprobe_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> +
> + fprobe_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_fprobe_link, link);
> + unregister_fprobe(&fprobe_link->fp);
> +}
> +
> +static void bpf_fprobe_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> +
> + fprobe_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_fprobe_link, link);
> + kfree(fprobe_link->addrs);
> + kfree(fprobe_link);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_fprobe_link_lops = {
> + .release = bpf_fprobe_link_release,
> + .dealloc = bpf_fprobe_link_dealloc,
> +};
> +
should this whole new link implementation (including
fprobe_link_prog_run() below) maybe live in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c?
Seems a bit more fitting than kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +static int fprobe_link_prog_run(struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
> + err = 0;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + migrate_disable();
> + err = bpf_prog_run(fprobe_link->link.prog, regs);
> + migrate_enable();
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + out:
> + __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static void fprobe_link_entry_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + unsigned long saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
> + struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> +
> + /*
> + * Because fprobe's regs->ip is set to the next instruction of
> + * dynamic-ftrace insturction, correct entry ip must be set, so
> + * that the bpf program can access entry address via regs as same
> + * as kprobes.
> + */
> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, entry_ip);
> +
> + fprobe_link = container_of(fp, struct bpf_fprobe_link, fp);
> + fprobe_link_prog_run(fprobe_link, regs);
> +
> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, saved_ip);
> +}
> +
> +static void fprobe_link_exit_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
isn't it identical to fprobe_lnk_entry_handler? Maybe use one callback
for both entry and exit?
> +{
> + unsigned long saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
> + struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> +
> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, entry_ip);
> +
> + fprobe_link = container_of(fp, struct bpf_fprobe_link, fp);
> + fprobe_link_prog_run(fprobe_link, regs);
> +
> + instruction_pointer_set(regs, saved_ip);
> +}
> +
> +static int fprobe_resolve_syms(const void *usyms, u32 cnt,
> + unsigned long *addrs)
> +{
> + unsigned long addr, size;
> + const char **syms;
> + int err = -ENOMEM;
> + unsigned int i;
> + char *func;
> +
> + size = cnt * sizeof(*syms);
> + syms = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
any reason not to use kvzalloc() here?
> + if (!syms)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
[...]
> +
> +static int bpf_fprobe_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> + struct bpf_fprobe_link *link = NULL;
> + struct bpf_link_primer link_primer;
> + unsigned long *addrs;
> + u32 flags, cnt, size;
> + void __user *uaddrs;
> + void __user *usyms;
> + int err;
> +
> + /* no support for 32bit archs yet */
> + if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
> + return -EINVAL;
-EOPNOTSUPP?
> +
> + if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_FPROBE)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + flags = attr->link_create.fprobe.flags;
> + if (flags & ~BPF_F_FPROBE_RETURN)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + uaddrs = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->link_create.fprobe.addrs);
> + usyms = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->link_create.fprobe.syms);
> + if ((!uaddrs && !usyms) || (uaddrs && usyms))
> + return -EINVAL;
!!uaddrs == !!usyms ?
> +
> + cnt = attr->link_create.fprobe.cnt;
> + if (!cnt)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + size = cnt * sizeof(*addrs);
> + addrs = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
same, why not kvzalloc? Also, aren't you overwriting each addrs entry
anyway, so "z" is not necessary, right?
> + if (!addrs)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-07 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-02 13:53 [PATCH 0/8] bpf: Add fprobe link Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 1/8] bpf: Add support to attach kprobe program with fprobe Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2022-02-08 8:56 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 2/8] bpf: Add bpf_get_func_ip kprobe helper for fprobe link Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-07 21:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-09 15:01 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-09 16:05 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-09 19:14 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 3/8] bpf: Add bpf_cookie support to fprobe Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-08 9:07 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-08 23:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-08 23:46 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-08 23:53 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 4/8] libbpf: Add libbpf__kallsyms_parse function Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-08 9:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 5/8] libbpf: Add bpf_link_create support for multi kprobes Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 6/8] libbpf: Add bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts " Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-08 9:12 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 7/8] selftest/bpf: Add fprobe attach test Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 13:53 ` [PATCH 8/8] selftest/bpf: Add fprobe test for bpf_cookie values Jiri Olsa
2022-02-07 18:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-08 9:15 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-08 23:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-02 17:09 ` [PATCH 0/8] bpf: Add fprobe link Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-02 17:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-02 17:30 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-03 15:06 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-04 0:46 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-04 1:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-04 2:07 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-04 2:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-04 2:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-02-04 2:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-04 3:17 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-04 3:59 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-15 13:21 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-16 18:27 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-17 14:03 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-17 22:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-18 4:07 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-18 19:46 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-02-19 2:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-02-21 7:18 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2022-02-22 12:42 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-02-04 3:14 ` Masami Hiramatsu
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=CAEf4BzZYepTYLN6LrPAAaOXUtCBv07bQQJzgarntu03L+cj2GQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--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).