On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 04:58:28PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:37 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 16:44:31 -0500 > > Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, I should've been clearer. I'm including eBPF/BCC into the > > > "user-space tools" here. That was in fact my prime motivation in > > > encouraging Joel at the last LPC to look at this. I've been integrating > > > the teaching of eBPF into my AOSP debugging and performance analysis > > > class (see CC courseware here: > > > http://www.opersys.com/training/android-debug-and-performance), and it > > > was pretty messy trying to show people how to benefit from such tools > > > under Android. Joel's present set of patches would obviate this problem. > > > > I've been reading this thread and staying out for the most part. But I > > was thinking about how I could use kernel headers for things like > > kprobes, and I want to mention the pony that I would like to have :-) > > > > Are headers really needed, and more importantly, are they enough? What > > if userspace is 32bit and the kernel is 64bit. Can ebpf scripts handle > > that? > > Why would eBPF care about the bit width of userspace? I've thought a > lot about inspecting user state from the kernel and have some weird > ideas in that area (e.g., why not register eBPF programs to unwind > user stacks?) --- but I think that Joel's work is independent of all > that. I'm curious what you think we can do about userspace. I wish we > could just compile the world with frame pointers, but we can't. Yeah, most of the usecases for eBPF tracing are all instrumenting the kernel using kprobes. There are some usecases that instrument userspace with uprobes but those don't need headers. > > What I would love, is a table that has all structures and their fields > > with information about their types, size and signed types. Like the > > format fields in the events directory. This way ebpf (and kprobes, > > internally in the kernel) could access this table and be able to know > > what the data structures of the kernel is). > > Think of the headers as encoding this information and more and the C > compiler as a magical decoder ring. :-) I totally get the desire for a > metadata format a little less messy than C code, but as a practical > matter, a rich C-compilation pipeline already exists, and the > debuginfo you're proposing doesn't, except in the form of DWARF, which > I think would be even more controversial to embed in the kernel memory > image than headers are. A header blob provides a strict superset of > the information your scheme provides. I think even though the kernel-headers can't have information about all data structures, they do already contain a lot of data structure definitions we need already. And anything needed can/should arguably be moved to include/ if they are really needed for kernel extension by something "external" to the kernel such as kernel modules or eBPF, right? In any case, such a solution such as what Steve suggested, still cannot do what we can with headers - such as build kernel modules on the fly using the C-compiler without any auto-generation of C code from any debug artifiacts. Think systemtap working with the module-backend without any need for linux-headers package on the file system. So such a solution would still be a bit orthogonal in scope to what this proposed solution can solve IMO. thanks, - Joel
