On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 8:01 PM Qiang Wang
<wangqiang.wq.frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If repeated legacy kprobes on same function in one process,
> libbpf will register using the same probe name and got -EBUSY
> error. So append index to the probe name format to fix this
> problem.
>
> And fix a bug in commit 46ed5fc33db9, which wrongly used the
> func_name instead of probe_name to register.
>
> Fixes: 46ed5fc33db9 ("libbpf: Refactor and simplify legacy kprobe code")
> Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Qiang Wang <wangqiang.wq.frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 7c74342bb668..7d1097958459 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -9634,7 +9634,8 @@ static int append_to_file(const char *file, const
> char *fmt, ...)
> static void gen_kprobe_legacy_event_name(char *buf, size_t buf_sz,
> const char *kfunc_name, size_t
> offset)
> {
> - snprintf(buf, buf_sz, "libbpf_%u_%s_0x%zx", getpid(),
> kfunc_name, offset);
> + static int index = 0;
> + snprintf(buf, buf_sz, "libbpf_%u_%s_0x%zx_%d", getpid(),
> kfunc_name, offset, index++);
BCC doesn't add this auto-increment (which is also not thread-safe)
and it seems like that works fine for all users.
What is the use case where you'd like to attach to the same kernel
function multiple times with legacy kprobe?
> }
>
> static int add_kprobe_event_legacy(const char *probe_name, bool retprobe,
> @@ -9735,7 +9736,7 @@ bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts(const struct
> bpf_program *prog,
> gen_kprobe_legacy_event_name(probe_name,
> sizeof(probe_name),
> func_name, offset);
>
> - legacy_probe = strdup(func_name);
> + legacy_probe = strdup(probe_name);
please send this as a separate fix
> if (!legacy_probe)
> return libbpf_err_ptr(-ENOMEM);
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
