On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:29:57 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You are probably talking about [0]. But I was asking about [1], i.e., > adding HAVE_RETHOOK support to ARM64. Despite all your emotions above, > can I still get a meaningful answer as for why that wasn't landed and > what prevents it from landing right now before Masami's 20-patch > series lands? As I replied to your last email, Mark discovered that [1] is incorrect. From the bpf perspective, it may be fine that struct pt_regs is missing some architecture-specific registers, but from an API perspective, it is a problem. Actually kretprobes on arm64 still does not do it correctly, but I also know most of users does not care. So currently I keep it as it is. But after fixing this issue on fprobe. I would like to update kretprobe so that it will use sw-breakpoint to handle it. It will increase the overhead of kretprobe, but it should be replaced by fprobe at that moment. Thank you, > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/172398527264.293426.2050093948411376857.stgit@devnote2/ > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164338038439.2429999.17564843625400931820.stgit@devnote2/ > > > > > Again, just letting you know. > > > > -- Steve -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
