All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Return error for missed kprobe multi bpf program execution
Date: Mon,  6 Jan 2025 18:50:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250106175048.1443905-1-jolsa@kernel.org> (raw)

When kprobe multi bpf program can't be executed due to recursion check,
we currently return 0 (success) to fprobe layer where it's ignored for
standard kprobe multi probes.

For kprobe session the success return value will make fprobe layer to
install return probe and try to execute it as well.

But the return session probe should not get executed, because the entry
part did not run. FWIW the return probe bpf program most likely won't get
executed, because its recursion check will likely fail as well, but we
don't need to run it in the first place.. also we can make this clear
and obvious.

It also affects missed counts for kprobe session program execution, which
are now doubled (extra count for not executed return probe).

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 48db147c6c7d..1f3d4b72a3f2 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -2797,7 +2797,7 @@ kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
 
 	if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
 		bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(link->link.prog);
-		err = 0;
+		err = 1;
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-- 
2.47.0


             reply	other threads:[~2025-01-06 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-06 17:50 Jiri Olsa [this message]
2025-01-06 17:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add kprobe session recursion check test Jiri Olsa
2025-01-06 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Return error for missed kprobe multi bpf program execution Song Liu
2025-01-08 11:38   ` Jiri Olsa
2025-01-08 20:56     ` Song Liu
2025-01-06 22:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-01-08 17:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250106175048.1443905-1-jolsa@kernel.org \
    --to=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.