Re: [PATCH] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

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.