Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACT4Y+YPrXGw+AtESxAgPyZ84TYkNZdP0xpocX2jwVAbZD=-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201112103125.GV2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CACT4Y+ayRHua-6UyRwSM3=_oi+NkXbaO3-zZ1mpDmWonbybkeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+bW1gpv8bz0vswaVUt-OB07oJ3NBeTi+vchAe8TTWK+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+ZsKXfAxrzJGQc5mJ+QiP5sAw7zKWtciS+07qZzSf33mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+YeRtOTsMQ8xxZg-=nbv+yuJvYYhBErT46M8jtSHmiw6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YBqXPmbpXf4hnlj3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CACT4Y+a-9kqX0ZkNz-ygib+ERn41HVo_8Wx6oYMQmPjTC06j7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YBqnAYVdNM4uyGny@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CACT4Y+btOt5QFKH9Q=81EnpDHoidJUHE2s0oZ8v65t-b__awuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YBvAsku9OWM7KUno@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YBvAsku9OWM7KUno@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:54:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZLSyVMkPfh3PftEWKC1kC+o1XLxo_o6i4BiyRuPig27g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Process-wide watchpoints
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Morehouse <mascasa@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:39 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:10:11AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:37 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Letting perf send a signal to the monitored task is intrusive.. let me
> > > think on that.
> >
> > I was thinking of something very similar to that bpf_send_signal that
> > delays sending to exit from irq:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c#L1091
>
> Oh, making code to do it isn't the problem. The problem stems from the
> fact that perf is supposed to be observant only. The exception is when
> you monitor yourself, in that case you can send signals to yourself,
> because you know what you're doing (supposedly ;-).
>
> But if you go send signals to the task you're monitoring, you're
> actually changing their code-flow, you're an active participant instead
> of an observer.
>
> Also, they might not be able to handle the signal, in which case you're
> not changing the program but terminating it entirely.
>
> That's a big conceptual shift.
>
> OTOH, we're using ptrace permission checks, and ptrace() can inject
> signals just fine. But it's a fairly big departure from what perf set
> out to be.

Oh, I see, I did not think about this.

FWIW it's doable today by attaching a BPF program.

Will it help if this mode is restricted to monitoring the current
process? Sending signals indeed usually requires cooperation, so doing
it for the current process looks like a reasonable restriction.
This may be not a fundamental restriction, but rather "we don't have
any use cases and are not sure about implications, so this is a
precaution measure, may be relaxed in future".