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;
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:12:53 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Jackie Liu <liu.yun@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ftrace: Show all functions with addresses in
 available_filter_functions_addrs
Message-ID: <20230609131253.0d67e746@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <ZINW9FqIoja76DRa@krava>
References: <20230608212613.424070-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
        <CAEf4BzbNakGzcycJJJqLsFwonOmya8=hKLD41TWX2zCJbh=r-Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <20230608192748.435a1dbf@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAEf4BzYkNHu7hiMYWQWs_gpYOfHL0FVuf-O0787Si2ze=PFX5w@mail.gmail.com>
        <ZILhqvrjeFIPHauy@FVFF77S0Q05N>
        <ZINW9FqIoja76DRa@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:44:36 -0700
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 09:24:10AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 
> > Do you need the address of the function entry-point or the address of the
> > patch-site within the function? Those can differ, and the rec->ip address won't
> > necessarily equal the address in /proc/kallsyms, so the pointer in
> > /proc/kallsyms won't (always) match the address we could print for the ftrace site.
> > 
> > On arm64, today we can have offsets of +0, +4, and +8, and within a single
> > kernel image different functions can have different offsets. I suspect in
> > future that we may have more potential offsets (e.g. due to changes for HW/SW
> > CFI).  
> 
> so we need that for kprobe_multi bpf link, which is based on fprobe,
> and that uses ftrace_set_filter_ips to setup the ftrace_ops filter
> 
> and ftrace_set_filter_ips works fine with ip address being the address
> of the patched instruction (it's matched in ftrace_location)

Yes, exactly. And it's off with the old "mcount" way of doing things too.

> 
> but right, I did not realize this.. it might cause confusion if people
> don't know it's patch-side addresses..  not sure if there's easy way to
> get real function address out of rec->ip, but it will also get more
> complicated on x86 when IBT is enabled, will check
> 
> or we could just use patch-side addresses and reflect that in the file's
> name like 'available_filter_functions_patch_addrs' .. it's already long
> name ;-)

No!  "available_filter_function_addrs" is enough to know that it's not
kallsyms. It's the filtered function address, which is enough description.
If people don't RTFM, then too bad ;-)

You can use ftrace_location() that takes an instruction pointer, and will
return the rec->ip of that function as long as it lands in between the
function's kallsyms start and end values.

-- Steve