From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F631C433F5 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:48:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245573AbiCWQuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:50:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36196 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S245583AbiCWQuA (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:50:00 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BCBBE2E; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7C8D6E; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakrids (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C04A03F73D; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:47:48 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Olsa , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, lkml , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Steven Rostedt , "Naveen N . Rao" , Anil S Keshavamurthy , "David S . Miller" , catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 bpf-next 0/1] fprobe: Introduce fprobe function entry/exit probe Message-ID: References: <164800288611.1716332.7053663723617614668.stgit@devnote2> <20220323235539.644ad8ace98347467de3e897@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220323235539.644ad8ace98347467de3e897@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:55:39PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:18:40 +0000 > Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:34:46AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > Here is the 13th version of rethook x86 port. This is developed for a part > > > of fprobe series [1] for hooking function return. But since I forgot to send > > > it to arch maintainers, that caused conflict with IBT and SLS mitigation series. > > > Now I picked the x86 rethook part and send it to x86 maintainers to be > > > reviewed. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/164735281449.1084943.12438881786173547153.stgit@devnote2/T/#u > > > > As mentioned elsewhere, I have similar (though not identical) concerns > > to Peter for the arm64 patch, which was equally unreviewed by > > maintainers, and the overall structure. > > Yes, those should be reviewed by arch maintainers. > > > > Note that this patch is still for the bpf-next since the rethook itself > > > is on the bpf-next tree. But since this also uses the ANNOTATE_NOENDBR > > > macro which has been introduced by IBT/ENDBR patch, to build this series > > > you need to merge the tip/master branch with the bpf-next. > > > (hopefully, it is rebased soon) > > > > I thought we were going to drop the series from the bpf-next tree so > > that this could all go through review it had missed thusfar. > > > > Is that still the plan? What's going on? > > Now the arm64 (and other arch) port is reverted from bpf-next. > I'll send those to you soon. Ah; thanks for confirming! > Since bpf-next is focusing on x86 at first, I chose this for review in > this version. Sorry for confusion. No problem; I think the confusion is all my own, so nothing to apologise for! :) > > > The fprobe itself is for providing the function entry/exit probe > > > with multiple probe point. The rethook is a sub-feature to hook the > > > function return as same as kretprobe does. Eventually, I would like > > > to replace the kretprobe's trampoline with this rethook. > > > > Can we please start by converting each architecture to rethook? > > Yes. As Peter pointed, I'm planning to add a kretprobe patches to use > rethook if available in that series. let me prepare it. > > > Ideally we'd unify things such that each architecture only needs *one* > > return trampoline that both ftrace and krpboes can use, which'd be > > significantly easier to get right and manage. > > Agreed :-) Great! Thanks, Mark.