On 7/29/21 10:34 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
Introduce a new type of BPF link - BPF perf link. This brings perf_event-based BPF program attachments (perf_event, tracepoints, kprobes, and uprobes) into the common BPF link infrastructure, allowing to list all active perf_event based attachments, auto-detaching BPF program from perf_event when link's FD is closed, get generic BPF link fdinfo/get_info functionality. BPF_LINK_CREATE command expects perf_event's FD as target_fd. No extra flags are currently supported. Force-detaching and atomic BPF program updates are not yet implemented, but with perf_event-based BPF links we now have common framework for this without the need to extend ioctl()-based perf_event interface. One interesting consideration is a new value for bpf_attach_type, which BPF_LINK_CREATE command expects. Generally, it's either 1-to-1 mapping from bpf_attach_type to bpf_prog_type, or many-to-1 mapping from a subset of bpf_attach_types to one bpf_prog_type (e.g., see BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_SKB or BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK). In this case, though, we have three different program types (KPROBE, TRACEPOINT, PERF_EVENT) using the same perf_event-based mechanism, so it's many bpf_prog_types to one bpf_attach_type. I chose to define a single BPF_PERF_EVENT attach type for all of them and adjust link_create()'s logic for checking correspondence between attach type and program type. The alternative would be to define three new attach types (e.g., BPF_KPROBE, BPF_TRACEPOINT, and BPF_PERF_EVENT), but that seemed like unnecessary overkill and BPF_KPROBE will cause naming conflicts with BPF_KPROBE() macro, defined by libbpf. I chose to not do this to avoid unnecessary proliferation of bpf_attach_type enum values and not have to deal with naming conflicts. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
