בתאריך יום ה׳, 7 ביולי 2022 ב-3:48 מאת Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> This RFC patch set is to gather feedback about new
> SEC("ksyscall") and SEC("kretsyscall") section definitions meant to simplify
> life of BPF users that want to trace Linux syscalls without having to know or
> care about things like CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER and related arch-specific
> vs arch-agnostic __<arch>_sys_xxx vs __se_sys_xxx function names, calling
> convention woes ("nested" pt_regs), etc. All this is quite annoying to
> remember and care about as BPF user, especially if the goal is to write
> achitecture- and kernel version-agnostic BPF code (e.g., things like
> libbpf-tools, etc).
>
> By using SEC("ksyscall/xxx")/SEC("kretsyscall/xxx") user clearly communicates
> the desire to kprobe/kretprobe kernel function that corresponds to the
> specified syscall. Libbpf will take care of all the details of determining
> correct function name and calling conventions.
>
> This patch set also improves BPF_KPROBE_SYSCALL (and renames it to
> BPF_KSYSCALL to match SEC("ksyscall")) macro to take into account
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER instead of hard-coding whether host
> architecture is expected to use syscall wrapper or not (which is less reliable
> and can change over time).
>
Hi Andrii,
I would very much liked if there was such a macro, which will make
things easier for syscall tracing,
but I think that you can't assume that libbpf will have access to
kconfig files all the time.
For example, if running from a container and not mounting /boot (on
environments where the config file is in /boot), libbpf will fail to
load CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER value and assume it to be not
defined.
Then, on any environment with a "new" kernel where the program runs
from a container, it will return the wrong argument values.
For this very reason we fall-back in [1] to assume
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER is defined, as in most environments it
will be.
[1] https://github.com/aquasecurity/tracee/blob/0f28a2cc14b851308ebaa380d503dea9eaa67271/pkg/ebpf/initialization/kconfig.go#L37
> It would be great to get feedback about the overall feature, but also I'd
> appreciate help with testing this, especially for non-x86_64 architectures.
>
> Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kenta Tada <kenta.tada@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Andrii Nakryiko (3):
> libbpf: improve and rename BPF_KPROBE_SYSCALL
> libbpf: add ksyscall/kretsyscall sections support for syscall kprobes
> selftests/bpf: use BPF_KSYSCALL and SEC("ksyscall") in selftests
>
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h | 44 +++++--
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 16 +++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 2 +
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_syscall_macro.c | 6 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c | 6 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_probe_user.c | 27 +----
> 8 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
