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: <20220722174120.688768a3@gandalf.local.home> <YtxqjxJVbw3RD4jt@krava>
 <YvbDlwJCTDWQ9uJj@krava> <20220813150252.5aa63650@rorschach.local.home>
 <Yvn9xR7qhXW7FnFL@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <YvoVgMzMuQbAEayk@krava>
 <Yvo+EpO9dN30G0XE@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAADnVQJfvn2RYydqgO-nS_K+C8WJL7BdCnR44MiMF4rnAwWM5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YvpZJQGQdVaa2Oh4@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAADnVQKyfrFTZOM9F77i0NbaXLZZ7KbvKBvu7p6kgdnRgG+2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yvpf67eCerqaDmlE@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <Yvpf67eCerqaDmlE@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 08:17:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKX5xJz5N_mVyf7wg4BT8Q2cNh8ze-SxTRfk6KtcFQ0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ftrace: Add support to keep some functions out of ftrace
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, bpf <bpf@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>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:02 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 07:45:16AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:33 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > It is in full control of the 'call __fentry__'. Absolute full NAK on you
> > > trying to make it otherwise.
> >
> > Don't mix 'call fentry' generated by the compiler with nop5 inserted
> > by macroses or JITs.
>
> Looking at:
>
>  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191211123017.13212-3-bjorn.topel@gmail.com/
>
> this seems to want to prod at the __fentry__ sites.
>
> > > > Soon we will have nop5 in the middle of the function.
> > > > ftrace must not touch it.
> > >
> > > How are you generating that NOP and what for?
> >
> > We're generating nop5-s in JITed code to further
> > attach to.
>
> Ftrace doesn't know about those; so how can it break that?
>
> Likewise it doesn't know about the static_branch/static_call NOPs and
> nothing is broken.
>
> Ftrace only knows about the __fentry__ sites, and it *does* own them.
> Are you saying ftrace is writing to a code location not a __fentry__
> site?

Let's keep it in one thread:

> It wasn't long before. Yes it landed a few months prior to the
> static_call work, but the whole static_call thing was in progress for a
> long long time.
>
> Anyway, yes it is different. But it's still very much broken. You simply
> cannot step on __fentry__ sites like that.

Ask yourself: should static_call patching logic go through
ftrace infra ? No. Right?
static_call has nothing to do with ftrace (function tracing).
Same thing here. bpf dispatching logic is nothing to do with
function tracing.
In this case bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func is a placeholder written C.
If it was written in asm, fentry recording wouldn't have known about it.
And that's more or less what Jiri patch is doing.
It's hiding a fake function from ftrace, since it's not a function
and ftrace infra shouldn't show it tracing logs.
In other words it's a _notrace_ function with nop5.