On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 07:11:23PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > +static bool allow_get_func_ip_tracing(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > +{
> > + return env->prog->jit_requested && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64);
>
> Why does it have to be gated by 'jited && x86_64' ?
> It's gated by bpf trampoline and it's only implemented on x86_64 so far.
> The trampoline has plenty of features. I would expect bpf trampoline
> for arm64 to implement all of them. If not the func_ip would be just
> one of the trampoline features that couldn't be implemented and at that
> time we'd need a flag mask of a sort, but I'd rather push of feature
> equivalence between trampoline implementations.
ok, check for trampoline's prog types should be enough
>
> Then jited part also doesn't seem to be necessary.
> The trampoline passed pointer to a stack in R1.
> Interpreter should deal with BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8) insn
> the same way and it should work, since trampoline prepared it.
> What did I miss?
ah right.. will remove that
SNIP
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 64bd2d84367f..9edd3b1a00ad 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -948,6 +948,19 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_snprintf_btf_proto = {
> > .arg5_type = ARG_ANYTHING,
> > };
> >
> > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_func_ip_tracing, void *, ctx)
> > +{
> > + /* Stub, the helper call is inlined in the program. */
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> may be add a WARN in here that it should never be executed ?
> Or may be add an actual implementation:
> return ((u64 *)ctx)[-1];
> and check that it works without inlining by the verifier?
>
sure, but having tracing program with this helper, it will be
always inlined, right? I can't see how it could be skipped
thanks,
jirka
