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, 11 Aug 2023 13:10:01 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] fprobe: Use fprobe_regs in fprobe entry
 handler
Message-ID: <20230811131001.7b22a17d@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230810071330.d41a728f996f76e3243f469e@kernel.org>
References: <169139090386.324433.6412259486776991296.stgit@devnote2>
        <169139091575.324433.13168120610633669432.stgit@devnote2>
        <CABRcYmKRAbOuqNQm5mCwC9NWbtcz1JJDYL_h5x6dK77SJ5FRkA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20230809231011.b125bd68887a5659db59905e@kernel.org>
        <CABRcYmKEd=zmriE8VUnSTvybwA962r60+QaRJZK=KNqYixd_eg@mail.gmail.com>
        <CABRcYmLHfQsjwf7dk+A0Q96iANhj60M0g_xRjVyMUY9LJPybNg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20230810071330.d41a728f996f76e3243f469e@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 07:13:30 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:

> > 
> > I hope that makes my thoughts clearer? It's a hairy topic ahah  
> 
> Ah, I see your point.
> 
> static void fprobe_init(struct fprobe *fp)
> {
>         fp->nmissed = 0;
>         if (fprobe_shared_with_kprobes(fp))
>                 fp->ops.func = fprobe_kprobe_handler;
>         else
>                 fp->ops.func = fprobe_handler;
>         fp->ops.flags |= FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS; <---- This flag!
> }
> 
> So it should be FTRACE_OPS_FL_ARGS. Let me fix that.

Yes, this was the concern that I was bringing up, where I did not see an
advantage of fprobes over kprobes using ftrace, because they both were
saving all registers.

-- Steve