On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:34:46AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hi, Hi Masami, > Here is the 13th version of rethook x86 port. This is developed for a part > of fprobe series [1] for hooking function return. But since I forgot to send > it to arch maintainers, that caused conflict with IBT and SLS mitigation series. > Now I picked the x86 rethook part and send it to x86 maintainers to be > reviewed. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/164735281449.1084943.12438881786173547153.stgit@devnote2/T/#u As mentioned elsewhere, I have similar (though not identical) concerns to Peter for the arm64 patch, which was equally unreviewed by maintainers, and the overall structure. > Note that this patch is still for the bpf-next since the rethook itself > is on the bpf-next tree. But since this also uses the ANNOTATE_NOENDBR > macro which has been introduced by IBT/ENDBR patch, to build this series > you need to merge the tip/master branch with the bpf-next. > (hopefully, it is rebased soon) I thought we were going to drop the series from the bpf-next tree so that this could all go through review it had missed thusfar. Is that still the plan? What's going on? > The fprobe itself is for providing the function entry/exit probe > with multiple probe point. The rethook is a sub-feature to hook the > function return as same as kretprobe does. Eventually, I would like > to replace the kretprobe's trampoline with this rethook. Can we please start by converting each architecture to rethook? Ideally we'd unify things such that each architecture only needs *one* return trampoline that both ftrace and krpboes can use, which'd be significantly easier to get right and manage. Thanks, Mark.
