On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:18:40 +0000 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes, those should be reviewed by arch maintainers. > > > 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? Now the arm64 (and other arch) port is reverted from bpf-next. I'll send those to you soon. Since bpf-next is focusing on x86 at first, I chose this for review in this version. Sorry for confusion. > > > 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? Yes. As Peter pointed, I'm planning to add a kretprobe patches to use rethook if available in that series. let me prepare it. > > 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. Agreed :-) Thank you, > > Thanks, > Mark. -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
