Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: make use of PROCMAP_QUERY ioctl if available

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 8:17 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:07 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:03:19PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > >  ssize_t get_uprobe_offset(const void *addr)
> > >  {
> > > -     size_t start, end, base;
> > > -     char buf[256];
> > > -     bool found = false;
> > > +     size_t start, base, end;
> > >       FILE *f;
> > > +     char buf[256];
> > > +     int err, flags;
> > >
> > >       f = fopen("/proc/self/maps", "r");
> > >       if (!f)
> > >               return -errno;
> > >
> > > -     while (fscanf(f, "%zx-%zx %s %zx %*[^\n]\n", &start, &end, buf, &base) == 4) {
> > > -             if (buf[2] == 'x' && (uintptr_t)addr >= start && (uintptr_t)addr < end) {
> > > -                     found = true;
> > > -                     break;
> > > +     /* requested executable VMA only */
> > > +     err = procmap_query(fileno(f), addr, PROCMAP_QUERY_VMA_EXECUTABLE, &start, &base, &flags);
> > > +     if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> > > +             bool found = false;
> > > +
> > > +             while (fscanf(f, "%zx-%zx %s %zx %*[^\n]\n", &start, &end, buf, &base) == 4) {
> > > +                     if (buf[2] == 'x' && (uintptr_t)addr >= start && (uintptr_t)addr < end) {
> > > +                             found = true;
> > > +                             break;
> > > +                     }
> > > +             }
> > > +             if (!found) {
> > > +                     fclose(f);
> > > +                     return -ESRCH;
> > >               }
> > > +     } else if (err) {
> > > +             fclose(f);
> > > +             return err;
> >
> > I feel like I commented on this before, so feel free to ignore me,
> > but this seems similar to the code below, could be in one function
>
> Do you mean get_rel_offset()? That one is for data symbols (USDT
> semaphores), so it a) doesn't do arch-specific adjustments and b)
> doesn't filter by executable flag. So while the logic of parsing and
> finding VMA is similar, conditions and adjustments are different. It
> feels not worth combining them, tbh.
>
> >
> > anyway it's good for follow up
> >
> > there was another selftest in the original patchset adding benchmark
> > for the procfs query interface, is it coming in as well?
>
> I didn't plan to send it, given it's not really a test. But I can put
> it on Github somewhere, probably, if it's useful.

With and without this selftest applied I see:
./test_progs -t uprobe
#416     uprobe:OK
#417     uprobe_autoattach:OK
[   47.448908] ref_ctr_offset mismatch. inode: 0x16b5f921 offset:
0x2d4297 ref_ctr_offset(old): 0x45e8b56 ref_ctr_offset(new): 0x45e8b54
#418/1   uprobe_multi_test/skel_api:OK

Is this a known issue?

Applied anyway.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux