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;
Date:   Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:56:47 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     acme@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        kjain@linux.ibm.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Message-ID: <61313a8fda896_2c56f208bb@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20210902165706.2812867-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
References: <20210902165706.2812867-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20210902165706.2812867-3-songliubraving@fb.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: introduce helper
 bpf_get_branch_snapshot
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Song Liu wrote:
> Introduce bpf_get_branch_snapshot(), which allows tracing pogram to get
> branch trace from hardware (e.g. Intel LBR). To use the feature, the
> user need to create perf_event with proper branch_record filtering
> on each cpu, and then calls bpf_get_branch_snapshot in the bpf function.
> On Intel CPUs, VLBR event (raw event 0x1b00) can be use for this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> ---

[...]

>  
> +BPF_CALL_3(bpf_get_branch_snapshot, void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags)
> +{
> +#ifndef CONFIG_X86
> +	return -ENOENT;
> +#else
> +	static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry);
> +	u32 entry_cnt = size / br_entry_size;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(flags))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!buf || (size % br_entry_size != 0))
> +		return -EINVAL;

LGTM, but why fail if buffer is slightly larger than expected? I guess its a slightly
buggy program that would do this, but not actually harmful right?

Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>