Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
CC:     <mingo@kernel.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@fb.com>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
References: <20171109080155.359718-1-yhs@fb.com>
 <20171109134423.GA8746@redhat.com>
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Message-ID: <2179faef-262c-21b5-e835-5dff52355656@fb.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:53:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171109134423.GA8746@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2017 21:53:28.0294 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0c68bf29-e407-4b46-1a52-08d527bc4f89
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR15MB1837
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-11-09_09:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 11/9/17 5:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/09, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>> This patch extends the emulation to "push <reg>"
>> insns. These insns are typical in the beginning
>> of the function. For example, bcc
>> in https://github.com/iovisor/bcc repo provides
>> tools to measure funclantency, detect memleak, etc.
>> The tools will place uprobes in the beginning of
>> function and possibly uretprobes at the end of function.
>> This patch is able to reduce the trap overhead for
>> uprobe from 2 to 1.
> 
> OK. but to be honest I do not like the implementation, please see below.
> 
>> +enum uprobe_insn_t {
>> +	UPROBE_BRANCH_INSN	= 0,
>> +	UPROBE_PUSH_INSN	= 1,
>> +};
>> +
>>   struct uprobe_xol_ops;
>>
>>   struct arch_uprobe {
>> @@ -42,6 +47,7 @@ struct arch_uprobe {
>>   	};
>>
>>   	const struct uprobe_xol_ops	*ops;
>> +	enum uprobe_insn_t		insn_class;
> 
> Why?
> 
> I'd suggest to leave branch_xol_ops alone and add the new push_xol_ops{},
> the code will look much simpler.
> 
> The only thing they can share is branch_post_xol_op() which is just
> 
> 	regs->sp += sizeof_long();
> 	return -ERESTART;
> 
> I think a bit of code duplication would be fine in this case.

Just prototyped. Agreed, having seperate uprobe_xol_ops for "push" 
emulation is clean and better.

> 
> And. Do you really need ->post_xol() method to emulate "push"? Why we can't
> simply execute it out-of-line if copy_to_user() fails?

Thanks for pointing it out. Agreed, we do not really need post_xol for 
"push". xol execution is just fine.

Will address your other comments as well in the next revision.

> 
> branch_post_xol_op() is needed because we can't execute "call" out-of-line,
> we need to restart and try again if copy_to_user() fails, but I don not
> understand why it is needed to emulate "push".
> 
> Oleg.
> 

From 1583600390168465683@xxx Thu Nov 09 14:50:19 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583574831236519975
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread