Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101036-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240311093526.1010158-1-dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com>
 <20240311093526.1010158-2-dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com> <CAADnVQKQPS5NcvEouH4JqZ2fKgQAC+LtcwhX9iXYoiEkF_M94Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALz3k9i5G5wWi+rtvHPwVLOUAXVMCiU_8QUZs87TEYgR_0wpPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQJ_ZCzMmT1aBsNXEBFfYNSVBdBXmLocjR0PPEWtYQrQFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALz3k9icPePb0c4FE67q=u1U0hrePorN9gDpQrKTR_sXbLMfDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAADnVQLwgw8bQ7OHBbqLhcPJ2QpxiGw3fkMFur+2cjZpM_78oA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQLwgw8bQ7OHBbqLhcPJ2QpxiGw3fkMFur+2cjZpM_78oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?5qKm6b6Z6JGj?= <dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:53:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CALz3k9g9k7fEwdTZVLhrmGoXp8CE47Q+83r-AZDXrzzuR+CjVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/9] bpf: tracing: add support
 to record and check the accessed args
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@gmail.com>, 
	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>, 
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>, 
	Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, 
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, 
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>, 
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:42=E2=80=AFAM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:42=E2=80=AFPM =E6=A2=A6=E9=BE=99=E8=91=A3 <dong=
menglong.8@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
[......]
>
> I see.
> I thought you're sharing the trampoline across attachments.
> (since bpf prog is the same).

That seems to be a good idea, which I hadn't thought before.

> But above approach cannot possibly work with a shared trampoline.
> You need to create individual trampoline for all attachment
> and point them to single bpf prog.
>
> tbh I'm less excited about this feature now, since sharing
> the prog across different attachments is nice, but it won't scale
> to thousands of attachments.
> I assumed that there will be a single trampoline with max(argno)
> across attachments and attach/detach will scale to thousands.
>
> With individual trampoline this will work for up to a hundred
> attachments max.

What does "a hundred attachments max" means? Can't I
trace thousands of kernel functions with a bpf program of
tracing multi-link?

>
> Let's step back.
> What is the exact use case you're trying to solve?
> Not an artificial one as selftest in patch 9, but the real use case?

I have a tool, which is used to diagnose network problems,
and its name is "nettrace". It will trace many kernel functions, whose
function args contain "skb", like this:

/nettrace -p icmp
begin trace...
***************** ffff889be8fbd500,ffff889be8fbcd00 ***************
[1272349.614564] [dev_gro_receive     ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614579] [__netif_receive_skb_core] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614585] [ip_rcv              ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614592] [ip_rcv_core         ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614599] [skb_clone           ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614616] [nf_hook_slow        ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614629] [nft_do_chain        ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614635] [ip_rcv_finish       ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614643] [ip_route_input_slow ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614647] [fib_validate_source ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614652] [ip_local_deliver    ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614658] [nf_hook_slow        ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614663] [ip_local_deliver_finish] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614666] [icmp_rcv            ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614671] [icmp_echo           ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614675] [icmp_reply          ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614715] [consume_skb         ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614722] [packet_rcv          ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220
[1272349.614725] [consume_skb         ] ICMP: 169.254.128.15 ->
172.27.0.6 ping request, seq: 48220

For now, I have to create a bpf program for every kernel
function that I want to trace, which is up to 200.

With this multi-link, I only need to create 5 bpf program,
like this:

int BPF_PROG(trace_skb_1, struct *skb);
int BPF_PROG(trace_skb_2, u64 arg0, struct *skb);
int BPF_PROG(trace_skb_3, u64 arg0, u64 arg1, struct *skb);
int BPF_PROG(trace_skb_4, u64 arg0, u64 arg1, u64 arg2, struct *skb);
int BPF_PROG(trace_skb_5, u64 arg0, u64 arg1, u64 arg2, u64 arg3, struct *s=
kb);

Then, I can attach trace_skb_1 to all the kernel functions that
I want to trace and whose first arg is skb; attach trace_skb_2 to kernel
functions whose 2nd arg is skb, etc.

Or, I can create only one bpf program and store the index
of skb to the attachment cookie, and attach this program to all
the kernel functions that I want to trace.

This is my use case. With the multi-link, now I only have
1 bpf program, 1 bpf link, 200 trampolines, instead of 200
bpf programs, 200 bpf link and 200 trampolines.

The shared trampoline you mentioned seems to be a
wonderful idea, which can make the 200 trampolines
to one. Let me have a look, we create a trampoline and
record the max args count of all the target functions, let's
mark it as arg_count.

During generating the trampoline, we assume that the
function args count is arg_count. During attaching, we
check the consistency of all the target functions, just like
what we do now.

Am I right?

Thanks!
Menglong Dong