On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 3:30 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 01:45:22PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Wire up BPF cookie for raw tracepoint programs (both BTF and non-BTF
> > aware variants). This brings them up to part w.r.t. BPF cookie usage
> > with classic tracepoint and fentry/fexit programs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > index f8a09a742e38..32dde6ce7e92 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -1611,6 +1611,7 @@ struct bpf_tracing_link {
> > struct bpf_raw_tp_link {
> > struct bpf_link link;
> > struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp;
> > + u64 cookie;
> > };
> >
> > struct bpf_link_primer {
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 3c42b9f1bada..bf80b614c4db 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -1664,6 +1664,7 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT_OPEN command */
> > __u64 name;
> > __u32 prog_fd;
>
> should we add __u32 :32; in here ?
>
I thought that's why we have __aligned_u64? But I'll look around in
bpf_attr if we do that elsewhere. I'll need to respin to fix config
without CONFIG_BPF anyways, so will incorporate this as well.
> jirka
>
> > + __aligned_u64 cookie;
> > } raw_tracepoint;
> >
> > struct { /* anonymous struct for BPF_BTF_LOAD */
[...]
