On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:40 AM Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> suppresses any data output. Return early from __perf_event_overflow() in
> this case so it will also suppress event_limit accounting, SIGTRAP
> generation, and F_ASYNC signalling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 24a718e7eb98..a329bec42c4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -9574,6 +9574,11 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
>
> ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> + if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> + return ret;
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * XXX event_limit might not quite work as expected on inherited
> * events
> @@ -9623,10 +9628,7 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> irq_work_queue(&event->pending_irq);
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> - if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
> -#endif
> - READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> + READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
>
Sorry, I haven't followed previous discussions, but why can't this
change be done as part of patch 1?
> if (*perf_event_fasync(event) && event->pending_kill) {
> event->pending_wakeup = 1;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
