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: <169078860386.173706.3091034523220945605.stgit@devnote2>
 <169078863449.173706.2322042687021909241.stgit@devnote2> <CAADnVQ+C64_C1w1kqScZ6C5tr6_juaWFaQdAp9Mt3uzaQp2KOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230801085724.9bb07d2c82e5b6c6a6606848@kernel.org> <CAADnVQLaFpd2OhqP7W3xWB1b9P2GAKgrVQU1FU2yeNYKbCkT=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230802000228.158f1bd605e497351611739e@kernel.org> <20230801112036.0d4ee60d@gandalf.local.home>
 <20230801113240.4e625020@gandalf.local.home> <CAADnVQ+N7b8_0UhndjwW9-5Vx2wUVvojujFLOCFr648DUv-Y2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230801190920.7a1abfd5@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230801190920.7a1abfd5@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2023 16:44:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+WPw0pfGAk+z=hCVrSmCBkKuh8GJm-5bkq5Ow7Md3sGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] bpf/btf: Add a function to search a member of a struct/union
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:09=E2=80=AFPM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>=
 wrote>
> Then I recommend that you give up using fprobes and just stick with kprob=
es
> as that's guaranteed to give you full pt_regs (at the overhead of doing
> things like filing in flags and such). And currently for arm64, fprobes c=
an
> only work with ftrace_regs, without the full pt_regs.

bpf doesn't attach to fprobes directly. That was never requested.
But Jiri's work to support multi attach
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220316122419.933957-1-jolsa@kernel.org/
was a joint effort with Masami that relied on fprobe multi attach api.
register_fprobe_ips() in particular, because the promise you guys
give us that callback will get pt_regs as
described in Documentation/trace/fprobe.rst.
From bpf side we don't care that such pt_regs is 100% filled in or
only partial as long as this pt_regs pointer is valid for perf_event_output
and stack walking that consume pt_regs.
I believe that was and still is the case for both x86 and arm64.

The way I understood Masami's intent is to change that promise and
fprobe callback will receive ftrace_regs that is incompatible with
pt_regs and that's obviously bad.
What you're suggesting "give up on using fprobe" is not up to us.
We're not using them. We care about register_fprobe_ips() and what
callback receives. Whatever internal changes to fprobe you're doing
are ok as long as the callback receives valid pt_regs (even partially fille=
d).