Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-77261-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:28:13 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: Implement
 arch_bpf_stack_walk() for the BPF JIT
Message-ID: <ZdegTX9x2ye-7xIt@arm.com>
References: <20240201125225.72796-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
 <20240201125225.72796-2-puranjay12@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240201125225.72796-2-puranjay12@gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:52:24PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> This will be used by bpf_throw() to unwind till the program marked as
> exception boundary and run the callback with the stack of the main
> program.
> 
> This is required for supporting BPF exceptions on ARM64.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 7f88028a00c0..66cffc5fc0be 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/efi.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
> +#include <linux/filter.h>
>  #include <linux/ftrace.h>
>  #include <linux/kprobes.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
> @@ -266,6 +267,31 @@ noinline noinstr void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>  	kunwind_stack_walk(arch_kunwind_consume_entry, &data, task, regs);
>  }
>  
> +struct bpf_unwind_consume_entry_data {
> +	bool (*consume_entry)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 fp);
> +	void *cookie;
> +};
> +
> +static bool
> +arch_bpf_unwind_consume_entry(const struct kunwind_state *state, void *cookie)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_unwind_consume_entry_data *data = cookie;
> +
> +	return data->consume_entry(data->cookie, state->common.pc, 0,
> +				   state->common.fp);
> +}
> +
> +noinline noinstr void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_entry)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp,
> +								u64 fp), void *cookie)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_unwind_consume_entry_data data = {
> +		.consume_entry = consume_entry,
> +		.cookie = cookie,
> +	};
> +
> +	kunwind_stack_walk(arch_bpf_unwind_consume_entry, &data, current, NULL);
> +}

Too many "cookies", I found reading this confusing. If you ever respin,
please use some different "cookie" names.

I guess you want this to be merged via the bpf tree?

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>