From: Dmitrii Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
dan.carpenter@linaro.org, olsajiri@gmail.com,
Dmitrii Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/4] Relax tracing prog recursive attach rules
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 16:47:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231201154734.8545-1-9erthalion6@gmail.com> (raw)
Currently, it's not allowed to attach an fentry/fexit prog to another
fentry/fexit. At the same time it's not uncommon to see a tracing
program with lots of logic in use, and the attachment limitation
prevents usage of fentry/fexit for performance analysis (e.g. with
"bpftool prog profile" command) in this case. An example could be
falcosecurity libs project that uses tp_btf tracing programs for
offloading certain part of logic into tail-called programs, but the
use-case is still generic enough -- a tracing program could be
complicated and heavy enough to warrant its profiling, yet frustratingly
it's not possible to do so use best tooling for that.
Following the corresponding discussion [1], the reason for that is to
avoid tracing progs call cycles without introducing more complex
solutions. But currently it seems impossible to load and attach tracing
programs in a way that will form such a cycle. Replace "no same type"
requirement with verification that no more than one level of attachment
nesting is allowed. In this way only one fentry/fexit program could be
attached to another fentry/fexit to cover profiling use case, and still
no cycle could be formed.
The series contains a test for recursive attachment, as well as a fix +
test for an issue in re-attachment branch of bpf_tracing_prog_attach.
When preparing the test for the main change set, I've stumbled upon the
possibility to construct a sequence of events when attach_btf would be
NULL while computing a trampoline key. It doesn't look like this issue
is triggered by the main change, because the reproduces doesn't actually
need to have an fentry attachment chain.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191108064039.2041889-16-ast@kernel.org/
Dmitrii Dolgov (3):
bpf: Relax tracing prog recursive attach rules
selftests/bpf: Add test for recursive attachment of tracing progs
selftests/bpf: Test re-attachment fix for bpf_tracing_prog_attach
Jiri Olsa (1):
bpf: Fix re-attachment branch in bpf_tracing_prog_attach
include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 16 +++
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 33 ++---
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
.../bpf/prog_tests/recursive_attach.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_recursive.c | 19 +++
.../bpf/progs/fentry_recursive_target.c | 31 +++++
8 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/recursive_attach.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_recursive.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_recursive_target.c
base-commit: 40d0eb0259ae77ace3e81d7454d1068c38bc95c2
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-12-01 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-01 15:47 Dmitrii Dolgov [this message]
2023-12-01 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/4] bpf: Relax tracing prog recursive attach rules Dmitrii Dolgov
2023-12-01 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add test for recursive attachment of tracing progs Dmitrii Dolgov
2023-12-01 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: Fix re-attachment branch in bpf_tracing_prog_attach Dmitrii Dolgov
2023-12-01 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test re-attachment fix for bpf_tracing_prog_attach Dmitrii Dolgov
2023-12-02 0:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/4] Relax tracing prog recursive attach rules Song Liu
2023-12-02 11:56 ` Dmitry Dolgov
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=20231201154734.8545-1-9erthalion6@gmail.com \
--to=9erthalion6@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox