On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:45:31 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:52:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu: > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:02:34 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Again, this only allows attaching to previously created kprobes, it does > > > not allow creating kprobes, right? > > > > That is; I don't think CAP_SYS_PERFMON should be allowed to create > > > kprobes. > > > > As might be clear; I don't actually know what the user-ABI is for > > > creating kprobes. > > > There are 2 ABIs nowadays, ftrace and ebpf. perf-probe uses ftrace interface to > > define new kprobe events, and those events are treated as completely same as > > tracepoint events. On the other hand, ebpf tries to define new probe event > > via perf_event interface. Above one is that interface. IOW, it creates new kprobe. > > Masami, any plans to make 'perf probe' use the perf_event_open() > interface for creating kprobes/uprobes? Would you mean perf probe to switch to perf_event_open()? No, perf probe is for setting up the ftrace probe events. I think we can add an option to use perf_event_open(). But current kprobe creation from perf_event_open() is separated from ftrace by design. I think the reason why ebpf uses perf_event_open() interface is to avoid conflict with ftrace users. Those probes are temporally used by ebpf, but if it is appeared on ftrace, it is easy to be used by ftrace. In that case, it can not be removed when the ebpf exits. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
