Received: by 2002:a19:771d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id s29csp1283290lfc; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHjr0G/PIh3S18v8DetjkbQEbypaOH8GlJuvVYnQhlFyGsf5+5tKHiMwFwU/ENEkDHuVBH X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2251:b0:1e6:76a8:44f3 with SMTP id hk17-20020a17090b225100b001e676a844f3mr2277906pjb.71.1654117814051; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1654117814; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=I31bsTlNCzVnJ8PbW636fGxJ35UjuYoLhVYNN06vpamxpNV5xfKcbmmk63IM6OTzC6 lJlfo6HOFMDxBqaV/BPvC9LvIM3RNrHbFrmDpN4o04s7VbLnFuCXk6+txJR5cUvxjBA5 p0E84HWnKKhPKHdqudXj6UM2bqU/q5f+ZvOtJSFhfT1VS3UTlywfRhp44CNIhB5Npb64 mtE0Kfez20vxMle29C6wH5EiqlxBro3S5ZNDAtEkNQgIxXgiaF14bu/BRa3W6MBG1EdA mfcAdCN4E/woFykujiIWgSBb4dshGuM1+/pPd8TgfC7rd7mFfw5wk+Vz+Tn7I0K9jZWR IhYg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=Y4NRZRSyqGiWpIcwDYq3GM+KrQW7Nh1I3ITsMZTx85k=; b=N2RSJimdQaMFf8Aia2tAmu09GQ3fajaDVaQPfL98g5ZNN0etA1rTZNW5VxCGQ/jA46 95clr6uJHun8BcD7XThw1XKIJWdIBXAtzX70wZIphiM/vRHoMBjbWnBBADhh8qL4cAqS +TmC2fPX14CuzlZqWpX3wclh7y4EBNDmm7aTYo2Htol1BBtMX9f/v9+H7qI8vGkHyQB2 7a+efd5CWPADOT46H5o1zgjKCN2/L4NYUNvTO+QPkdv9S8H3Dn2B0w+xgJUJJ/EJVZbx UP+JqgLmvlLf5YCNf9mZ7mTuz57y93oIh9kg3Le9S7tskzEW8N1rUq2r8BMc7vVAJ+HW leaQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=H9giW1zQ; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net. [23.128.96.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bj9-20020a17090b088900b001d29340d056si3280602pjb.44.2022.06.01.14.10.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=H9giW1zQ; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF47821D48C; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 13:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242093AbiEaBAN (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 30 May 2022 21:00:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34058 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238350AbiEaBAJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2022 21:00:09 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8490D56C04; Mon, 30 May 2022 18:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D02060F15; Tue, 31 May 2022 01:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50E11C385B8; Tue, 31 May 2022 01:00:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1653958806; bh=jNUPq/Tf7RZLxM01lVMgFQXyzyWU02Zq99rarwAuvzQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=H9giW1zQMpscgulPFUwCl5b84ckvXqhU7BmMSZ35f4dwWJM4XXjWrqB5ZMlaH6RiV 2ybrnwbU96e7unajuXF7G7Nw7kQpbO7rowgaOD/vvuo+ptSBgg5TM1+jyJvEljcuoq twANhFTRPo5JIB7eNqXRKu7bbuGIb9KvpjG7weSytHtV4a1H4UXyfRw2zrWyz0MGg9 oyuCy0WYpemdU5SdNE7SszZRhr+diV6HbccanRZOTX6tCOBiKpdYbcAKDqduoIeIlN yptHxjHgvjHc0uARiI/alXiIS0KMWPkRZNYPUhTmKxx3aS3Zp9PGvDHOJ376+JzTg2 VQ7n1OsU6AcVA== Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 10:00:00 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Mark Rutland , Steven Rostedt , Wang ShaoBo , cj.chengjian@huawei.com, huawei.libin@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com, liwei391@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, zengshun.wu@outlook.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -next v2 3/4] arm64/ftrace: support dynamically allocated trampolines Message-Id: <20220531100000.cbd18c4c08eacb67b95fba5b@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220505121538.04773ac98e2a8ba17f675d39@kernel.org> <20220509142203.6c4f2913@gandalf.local.home> <20220510181012.d5cba23a2547f14d14f016b9@kernel.org> <20220510104446.6d23b596@gandalf.local.home> <20220511233450.40136cdf6a53eb32cd825be8@kernel.org> <20220511111207.25d1a693@gandalf.local.home> <20220512210231.f9178a98f20a37981b1e89e3@kernel.org> <20220530100310.c22c36df4ea9324cb9cb3515@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 May 2022 14:38:31 +0200 Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:03:10AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > (Cc: BPF ML) > > > > On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:17:30 +0100 > > Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:02:31PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:12:07 -0400 > > > > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 11 May 2022 23:34:50 +0900 > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so fregs::regs will have a subset of pt_regs, and accessibility of > > > > > > the registers depends on the architecture. If we can have a checker like > > > > > > > > > > > > ftrace_regs_exist(fregs, reg_offset) > > > > > > > > > > Or something. I'd have to see the use case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kprobe on ftrace or fprobe user (BPF) can filter user's requests. > > > > > > I think I can introduce a flag for kprobes so that user can make a > > > > > > kprobe handler only using a subset of registers. > > > > > > Maybe similar filter code is also needed for BPF 'user space' library > > > > > > because this check must be done when compiling BPF. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any other case without full regs that the user would want anything > > > > > other than the args, stack pointer and instruction pointer? > > > > > > > > For the kprobes APIs/events, yes, it needs to access to the registers > > > > which is used for local variables when probing inside the function body. > > > > However at the function entry, I think almost no use case. (BTW, pstate > > > > is a bit special, that may show the actual processor-level status > > > > (context), so for the debugging, user might want to read it.) > > > > > > As before, if we really need PSTATE we *must* take an exception to get a > > > reliable snapshot (or to alter the value). So I'd really like to split this > > > into two cases: > > > > > > * Where users *really* need PSTATE (or arbitrary GPRs), they use kprobes. That > > > always takes an exception and they can have a complete, real struct pt_regs. > > > > > > * Where users just need to capture a function call boundary, they use ftrace. > > > That uses a trampoline without taking an exception, and they get the minimal > > > set of registers relevant to the function call boundary (which does not > > > include PSTATE or most GPRs). > > > > I totally agree with this idea. The x86 is a special case, since the > > -fentry option puts a call on the first instruction of the function entry, > > I had to reuse the ftrace instead of swbp for kprobes. > > But on arm64 (and other RISCs), we can use them properly. > > > > My concern is that the eBPF depends on kprobe (pt_regs) interface, thus > > I need to ask them that it is OK to not accessable to some part of > > pt_regs (especially, PSTATE) if they puts probes on function entry > > with ftrace (fprobe in this case.) > > > > (Jiri and BPF developers) > > Currently fprobe is only enabled on x86 for "multiple kprobes" BPF > > interface, but in the future, it will be enabled on arm64. And at > > that point, it will be only accessible to the regs for function > > arguments. Is that OK for your use case? And will the BPF compiler > > I guess from practical POV registers for arguments and ip should be enough, > but whole pt_regs was already exposed to programs, so people can already use > any of them.. not sure it's good idea to restrict it > > > be able to restrict the user program to access only those registers > > when using the "multiple kprobes"? > > pt-regs pointer is provided to kprobe programs, I guess we could provide copy > of that with just available values Yes, ftrace_regs already provides partial filled pt_regs (which registers are valid is arch-dependent). Thus, my idea is changing fprobe's handler interface to expose ftrace_regs instead of pt_regs, and the BPF handler will extract the internal pt_regs. If the BPF compiler can list which registers will be accessed form the user program, the kernel side can filter it. I think similar feature can be done in the kprobe-event (new fprobe event?). Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google)