Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-125526-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::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>
 <CALz3k9g9k7fEwdTZVLhrmGoXp8CE47Q+83r-AZDXrzzuR+CjVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQLHpi3J6cBJ0QBgCQ2aY6fWGnVvNGdfi3W-jmoa9d1eVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALz3k9g-U8ih=ycJPRbyU9x_9cp00fNkU3PGQ6jP0WJ+=uKmqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALz3k9jG5Jrqw=BGjt05yMkEF-1u909GbBYrV-02W0dQtm6KQQ@mail.gmail.com> <20240328111330.194dcbe5@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20240328111330.194dcbe5@gandalf.local.home>
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:28:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYgzOti+Hfdn3SUCjuofGedXRSGApVDD+K2TdG6oNE-pw@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: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?5qKm6b6Z6JGj?= <dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	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>, 
	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>, 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 Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:10=E2=80=AFAM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:43:46 +0800
> =E6=A2=A6=E9=BE=99=E8=91=A3 <dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> > I have done a simple benchmark on creating 1000
> > trampolines. It is slow, quite slow, which consume up to
> > 60s. We can't do it this way.
> >
> > Now, I have a bad idea. How about we introduce
> > a "dynamic trampoline"? The basic logic of it can be:
> >
> > """
> > save regs
> > bpfs =3D trampoline_lookup_ip(ip)
> > fentry =3D bpfs->fentries
> > while fentry:
> >   fentry(ctx)
> >   fentry =3D fentry->next
> >
> > call origin
> > save return value
> >
> > fexit =3D bpfs->fexits
> > while fexit:
> >   fexit(ctx)
> >   fexit =3D fexit->next
> >
> > xxxxxx
> > """
> >
> > And we lookup the "bpfs" by the function ip in a hash map
> > in trampoline_lookup_ip. The type of "bpfs" is:
> >
> > struct bpf_array {
> >   struct bpf_prog *fentries;
> >  struct bpf_prog *fexits;
> >   struct bpf_prog *modify_returns;
> > }
> >
> > When we need to attach the bpf progA to function A/B/C,
> > we only need to create the bpf_arrayA, bpf_arrayB, bpf_arrayC
> > and add the progA to them, and insert them to the hash map
> > "direct_call_bpfs", and attach the "dynamic trampoline" to
> > A/B/C. If bpf_arrayA exist, just add progA to the tail of
> > bpf_arrayA->fentries. When we need to attach progB to
> > B/C, just add progB to bpf_arrayB->fentries and
> > bpf_arrayB->fentries.
> >
> > Compared to the trampoline, extra overhead is introduced
> > by the hash lookuping.
> >
> > I have not begun to code yet, and I am not sure the overhead is
> > acceptable. Considering that we also need to do hash lookup
> > by the function in kprobe_multi, maybe the overhead is
> > acceptable?
>
> Sounds like you are just recreating the function management that ftrace
> has. It also can add thousands of trampolines very quickly, because it do=
es
> it in batches. It takes special synchronization steps to attach to fentry=
.
> ftrace (and I believe multi-kprobes) updates all the attachments for each
> step, so the synchronization needed is only done once.
>
> If you really want to have thousands of functions, why not just register =
it
> with ftrace itself. It will give you the arguments via the ftrace_regs
> structure. Can't you just register a program as the callback?
>
> It will probably make your accounting much easier, and just let ftrace
> handle the fentry logic. That's what it was made to do.
>

I thought I'll just ask instead of digging through code, sorry for
being lazy :) Is there any way to pass pt_regs/ftrace_regs captured
before function execution to a return probe (fexit/kretprobe)? I.e.,
how hard is it to pass input function arguments to a kretprobe? That's
the biggest advantage of fexit over kretprobe, and if we can make
these original pt_regs/ftrace_regs available to kretprobe, then
multi-kretprobe will effectively be this multi-fexit.

> -- Steve