On 5/17/19 11:40 AM, Song Liu wrote:
> +Alexei, Daniel, and bpf
>
>> On May 17, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:15:39PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
>>> Hi, I think the actual problem is that bpf_get_stackid_tp (and maybe
>>> some other bfp functions) is now broken, or, strating an unwind
>>> directly inside a bpf program will end up strangely. It have following
>>> kernel message:
>>
>> Urgh, what is that bpf_get_stackid_tp() doing to get the regs? I can't
>> follow.
>
> I guess we need something like the following? (we should be able to
> optimize the PER_CPU stuff).
>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
>
> diff --git i/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c w/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index f92d6ad5e080..c525149028a7 100644
> --- i/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ w/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -696,11 +696,13 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_event_output_proto_tp = {
> .arg5_type = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO,
> };
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pt_regs, bpf_stackid_tp_regs);
> BPF_CALL_3(bpf_get_stackid_tp, void *, tp_buff, struct bpf_map *, map,
> u64, flags)
> {
> - struct pt_regs *regs = *(struct pt_regs **)tp_buff;
> + struct pt_regs *regs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_stackid_tp_regs);
>
> + perf_fetch_caller_regs(regs);
No. pt_regs is already passed in. It's the first argument.
If we call perf_fetch_caller_regs() again the stack trace will be wrong.
bpf prog should not see itself, interpreter or all the frames in between.
