On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 16:18:13 +0100
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:15:32PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:25:52 +0100
> > Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:03:22PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > Add a return hook framework which hooks the function
> > > > return. Most of the idea came from the kretprobe, but
> > > > this is independent from kretprobe.
> > > > Note that this is expected to be used with other
> > > > function entry hooking feature, like ftrace, fprobe,
> > > > adn kprobes. Eventually this will replace the
> > > > kretprobe (e.g. kprobe + rethook = kretprobe), but
> > > > at this moment, this is just a additional hook.
> > >
> > > this looks similar to the code kretprobe is using now
> >
> > Yes, I've mostly re-typed the code :)
> >
> > > would it make sense to incrementaly change current code to provide
> > > this rethook interface? instead of big switch of current kretprobe
> > > to kprobe + new rethook interface in future?
> >
> > Would you mean modifying the kretprobe instance code to provide
> > similar one, and rename it at some point?
> > My original idea is to keep the current kretprobe code and build
> > up the similar one, and switch to it at some point. Actually,
> > I don't want to change the current kretprobe interface itself,
> > but the backend will be changed. For example, current kretprobe
> > has below interface.
> >
> > struct kretprobe {
> > struct kprobe kp;
> > kretprobe_handler_t handler;
> > kretprobe_handler_t entry_handler;
> > int maxactive;
> > int nmissed;
> > size_t data_size;
> > struct freelist_head freelist;
> > struct kretprobe_holder *rph;
> > };
> >
> > My idea is switching it to below.
> >
> > struct kretprobe {
> > struct kprobe kp;
> > kretprobe_handler_t handler;
> > kretprobe_handler_t entry_handler;
> > int maxactive;
> > int nmissed;
> > size_t data_size;
> > struct rethook *rethook;
> > };
>
> looks good, will this be a lot of changes?
Yes and no, we can easily replace the kretprobe generic trampoline
callback (since it almost same, and have same feature), but it also
needs to update per-arch kretprobe trampoline to rethook trampoline.
> could you include it in the patchset?
Let me try, but since it involves many archs (which support kretprobes)
it may take a time to be merged.
Thank you,
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
> >
> > Of course 'kretprobe_instance' may need to be changed...
> >
> > struct kretprobe_instance {
> > struct rethook_node;
> > char data[];
> > };
> >
> > But even though, since there is 'get_kretprobe(ri)' wrapper, user
> > will be able to access the 'struct kretprobe' from kretprobe_instance
> > transparently.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
