On 08/01/2025 15:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:19:11 +0000
> Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> + trace_seq_printf(s, "(");
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!args)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> + if (lookup_symbol_name(func, name))
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + btf = bpf_get_btf_vmlinux();
>>>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(btf))
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to the retrieve the BTF of vmlinux, as btf_find_func_proto
>>>> will return the correct BTF via its second parameter.
>>>
>>> Good catch! The second parameter of btf_find_func_proto() is output.
>>>
>>
>> One thought here - with btf_find_func_proto(), we will try kernel BTF
>> and then proceed to module BTF, iterating over all modules to find the
>> function prototype. So where we are tracing module functions this could
>> get expensive if such a function is frequently encountered, and it also
>> opens up the risk that we end up using the wrong function prototype from
>> the wrong module that just happens to match on function name.
>>
>> So I wonder if we could use the function address to do a more guided
>> lookup. Perhaps we could use kallsyms_lookup(), retrieving the
>> (potential) module name. Then maybe modify the signature of
>> btf_find_func_proto() to take an optional module name parameter to avoid
>> iteration? None of this is strictly needed, but it may speed things up a
>> bit and give us more accurate parameter info for those few cases with
>> name clashes, so could be done as a follow-up if needed. Thanks!
>
> Well, every place this is called, we first get the function name from
> kallsyms. Perhaps I can modify the code to get the module name as well, and
> if it exists, we can pass that too?
>
yep, that would be great! One thing we should probably think about for
the future is ways to stash module/BTF ids such that we don't need
lookup each time, but I can't see any obvious way to do that currently.
> -- Steve
