On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 03:30:10PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:42 AM Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:22 AM Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach doesn't support 32-bit kernels > > > > for whatever reason, > > > > > > Jiri, > > > why did you add this restriction? sorry, I overlooked this email the reason for that check is that we link addrs array with cookies which are u64 and we need to swap cookies together with addrs when we sort them but now when I look at that, that could perhaps work event if unsigned long is 32 bits, will check > > > > > > > having it enabled for compat processes on 64-bit > > > > kernels makes even less sense due to discrepances in the type sizes > > > > that it does not handle. > > > > > > I don't follow this logic. > > > bpf progs are always 64-bit. Even when user space is 32-bit. > > > Jiri's check is for the kernel. > > > > The interface as defined (and implemented in libbpf) expects arrays of userspace > > pointers to be passed (for example, syms points to an array of userspace > > pointers—character strings; same goes for addrs, but with generic userspace > > pointers) without regard to possible difference in the pointer size in case > > of compat userspace. > > I see. So kprobe_multi.syms and kprobe_multi.addrs will be 'long' > and 32-bit user space will have an issue with the 64-bit kernel. > Let's fix it properly. > We can remove sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *) and keep libbpf as-is > by keeping syms and addrs 'long' in uapi. > As far as I can see 32-bit user space on a 32-bit kernel > should work with existing code. > in_compat_syscall() can be used to extend addrs/syms. I'll check Eugene's new patchset jirka
