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;
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:44:23 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86
Message-ID: <20171109134423.GA8746@redhat.com>
References: <20171109080155.359718-1-yhs@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171109080155.359718-1-yhs@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

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?

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 1583574831236519975@xxx Thu Nov 09 08:04:04 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583574831236519975
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread