Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220202135333.190761-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <CAADnVQ+hTWbvNgnvJpAeM_-Ui2-G0YSM3QHB9G2+2kWEd4-Ymw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yfq+PJljylbwJ3Bf@krava> <CAADnVQKeTB=UgY4Gf-46EBa8rwWTu2wvi7hEj2sdVTALGJ0JEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfvvfLlM1FOTgvDm@krava> <20220204094619.2784e00c0b7359356458ca57@kernel.org>
 <CAADnVQJYY0Xm6M9O02E5rOkdQPX39NOOS4tM2jpwRLQvP-qDBg@mail.gmail.com> <20220204110704.7c6eaf43ff9c8f5fe9bf3179@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220204110704.7c6eaf43ff9c8f5fe9bf3179@kernel.org>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 18:12:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJfq_10H0V+u0w0rzyZ9uy7vq=T-3BMDANjEN8A3-prsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] bpf: Add fprobe link
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:07 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:34:54 -0800
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 4:46 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought What Alexei pointed was that don't expose the FPROBE name
> > > to user space. If so, I agree with that. We can continue to use
> > > KPROBE for user space. Using fprobe is just for kernel implementation.
> >
> > Clearly that intent is not working.
>
> Thanks for confirmation :-)
>
> > The "fprobe" name is already leaking outside of the kernel internals.
> > The module interface is being proposed.
>
> Yes, but that is only for making the example module.
> It is easy for me to enclose it inside kernel. I'm preparing KUnit
> selftest code for next version. After integrated that, we don't need
> that example module anymore.
>
> > You'd need to document it, etc.
>
> Yes, I've added a document of the APIs for the series.  :-)
>
> > I think it's only causing confusion to users.
> > The new name serves no additional purpose other than
> > being new and unheard of.
> > fprobe is kprobe on ftrace. That's it.
>
> No, fprobe is NOT kprobe on ftrace, kprobe on ftrace is already implemented
> transparently.

Not true.
fprobe is nothing but _explicit_ kprobe on ftrace.
There was an implicit optimization for kprobe when ftrace
could be used.
All this new interface is doing is making it explicit.
So a new name is not warranted here.

> from that viewpoint, fprobe and kprobe interface are similar but different.

What is the difference?
I don't see it.