On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 15:13 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 11:54:27 -0700, Matt Mullins wrote:
> > BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINTs can be executed nested on the same CPU, as
> > they do not increment bpf_prog_active while executing.
> >
> > This enables three levels of nesting, to support
> > - a kprobe or raw tp or perf event,
> > - another one of the above that irq context happens to call, and
> > - another one in nmi context
> > (at most one of which may be a kprobe or perf event).
> >
> > Fixes: 20b9d7ac4852 ("bpf: avoid excessive stack usage for perf_sample_data")
>
> No comment on the code, but you're definitely missing a sign-off.
Oops, I totally am. I'll give it some more time for opinions to roll
in, and I'll fix that before I resubmit :)
>
> > ---
> > This is more lines of code, but possibly less intrusive than the
> > per-array-element approach.
> >
> > I don't necessarily like that I duplicated the nest_level logic in two
> > places, but I don't see a way to unify them:
> > - kprobes' bpf_perf_event_output doesn't use bpf_raw_tp_regs, and does
> > use the perf_sample_data,
> > - raw tracepoints' bpf_get_stackid uses bpf_raw_tp_regs, but not
> > the perf_sample_data, and
> > - raw tracepoints' bpf_perf_event_output uses both...
>
>
