On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 9:16 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Instead of conditionally overriding PT_REGS_PARM4_SYSCALL, provide > default fallbacks for all __PT_PARMn_REG_SYSCALL macros, so that > architectures can simply override a specific syscall parameter macro. > Also allow completely overriding PT_REGS_PARM1_SYSCALL for > non-trivial access sequences. > > Co-developed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > index da7e8d5c939c..82f1e935d549 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h > @@ -265,25 +265,43 @@ struct pt_regs; > > #endif > > -#define PT_REGS_PARM1_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM1(x) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM2_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM2(x) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM3_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM3(x) > -#ifdef __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL > +#ifndef __PT_PARM1_REG_SYSCALL > +#define __PT_PARM1_REG_SYSCALL __PT_PARM1_REG > +#endif > +#ifndef __PT_PARM2_REG_SYSCALL > +#define __PT_PARM2_REG_SYSCALL __PT_PARM2_REG > +#endif > +#ifndef __PT_PARM3_REG_SYSCALL > +#define __PT_PARM3_REG_SYSCALL __PT_PARM3_REG > +#endif > +#ifndef __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL > +#define __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL __PT_PARM4_REG > +#endif > +#ifndef __PT_PARM5_REG_SYSCALL > +#define __PT_PARM5_REG_SYSCALL __PT_PARM5_REG > +#endif > + > +#ifndef PT_REGS_PARM1_SYSCALL > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1_SYSCALL(x) (__PT_REGS_CAST(x)->__PT_PARM1_REG_SYSCALL) > +#endif > +#ifndef PT_REGS_PARM2_SYSCALL > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2_SYSCALL(x) (__PT_REGS_CAST(x)->__PT_PARM2_REG_SYSCALL) > +#endif > +#ifndef PT_REGS_PARM3_SYSCALL > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3_SYSCALL(x) (__PT_REGS_CAST(x)->__PT_PARM3_REG_SYSCALL) > +#endif > +#ifndef PT_REGS_PARM4_SYSCALL > #define PT_REGS_PARM4_SYSCALL(x) (__PT_REGS_CAST(x)->__PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL) > -#else /* __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL */ > -#define PT_REGS_PARM4_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM4(x) > #endif > -#define PT_REGS_PARM5_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM5(x) > +#ifndef PT_REGS_PARM5_SYSCALL > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5_SYSCALL(x) (__PT_REGS_CAST(x)->__PT_PARM5_REG_SYSCALL) > +#endif > > -#define PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE(x) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM2_CORE_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM2_CORE(x) > -#define PT_REGS_PARM3_CORE_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM3_CORE(x) > -#ifdef __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL > +#define PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE_SYSCALL(x) BPF_CORE_READ(__PT_REGS_CAST(x), __PT_PARM1_REG_SYSCALL) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM2_CORE_SYSCALL(x) BPF_CORE_READ(__PT_REGS_CAST(x), __PT_PARM2_REG_SYSCALL) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM3_CORE_SYSCALL(x) BPF_CORE_READ(__PT_REGS_CAST(x), __PT_PARM3_REG_SYSCALL) > #define PT_REGS_PARM4_CORE_SYSCALL(x) BPF_CORE_READ(__PT_REGS_CAST(x), __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL) > -#else /* __PT_PARM4_REG_SYSCALL */ > -#define PT_REGS_PARM4_CORE_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM4_CORE(x) > -#endif > -#define PT_REGS_PARM5_CORE_SYSCALL(x) PT_REGS_PARM5_CORE(x) > +#define PT_REGS_PARM5_CORE_SYSCALL(x) BPF_CORE_READ(__PT_REGS_CAST(x), __PT_PARM5_REG_SYSCALL) > No, please don't do it. It makes CORE variants too rigid. We agreed w/ Naveen that the way you did it in v2 is better and more flexible and in v3 you did it the other way. Why? > #else /* defined(bpf_target_defined) */ > > -- > 2.34.1 >
