Hi Florent,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:28:38 +0200
Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48 AM Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
> <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This allows fprobes to be available with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
> > instead of CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS, then we can enable fprobe
> > on arm64.
>
> This patch lets fprobe code build on configs WITH_ARGS and !WITH_REGS
> but fprobe wouldn't run on these builds because fprobe still registers
> to ftrace with FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS, which would fail on
> !WITH_REGS. Shouldn't we also let the fprobe_init callers decide
> whether they want REGS or not ?
Ah, I think you meant FPROBE_EVENTS? Yes I forgot to add the dependency
on it. But fprobe itself can work because fprobe just pass the ftrace_regs
to the handlers. (Note that exit callback may not work until next patch)
>
> > static int
> > kprobe_multi_link_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long fentry_ip,
> > - unsigned long ret_ip, struct pt_regs *regs,
> > + unsigned long ret_ip, struct ftrace_regs *fregs,
> > void *data)
> > {
> > struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link;
> > + struct pt_regs *regs = ftrace_get_regs(fregs);
> > +
> > + if (!regs)
> > + return 0;
>
> (with the above comment addressed) this means that BPF multi_kprobe
> would successfully attach on builds WITH_ARGS but the programs would
> never actually run because here regs would be 0. This is a confusing
> failure mode for the user. I think that if multi_kprobe won't work
> (because we don't have a pt_regs conversion path yet), the user should
> be notified at attachment time that they won't be getting any events.
Yes, so I changed it will not be compiled in that case.
@@ -2460,7 +2460,7 @@ static int __init bpf_event_init(void)
fs_initcall(bpf_event_init);
#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
-#ifdef CONFIG_FPROBE
+#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link {
struct bpf_link link;
struct fprobe fp;
> That's why I think kprobe_multi should inform fprobe_init that it
> wants FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS and fail if that's not possible (no
> trampoline for it for example)
Yeah, that's another possibility, but in the previous thread we
discussed and agreed to introduce the ftrace_partial_regs() which
will copy the partial registers from ftrace_regs to pt_regs.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
