* [PATCHv4 01/14] uprobe: Add data pointer to consumer handlers
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer Jiri Olsa
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding data pointer to both entry and exit consumer handlers and all
its users. The functionality itself is coming in following change.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/uprobes.h | 4 ++--
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 6 ++++--
kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 12 ++++++++----
.../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index 2b294bf1881f..bb265a632b91 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ struct uprobe_consumer {
* for the current process. If filter() is omitted or returns true,
* UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE is effectively ignored.
*/
- int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs);
+ int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs, __u64 *data);
int (*ret_handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self,
unsigned long func,
- struct pt_regs *regs);
+ struct pt_regs *regs, __u64 *data);
bool (*filter)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct mm_struct *mm);
struct list_head cons_node;
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index ac0a01cc8634..de241503c8fb 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3332,7 +3332,8 @@ uprobe_multi_link_filter(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct mm_struct *mm)
}
static int
-uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs)
+uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data)
{
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
@@ -3341,7 +3342,8 @@ uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs)
}
static int
-uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs)
+uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data)
{
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
index f7443e996b1b..11103dde897b 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
@@ -88,9 +88,11 @@ static struct trace_uprobe *to_trace_uprobe(struct dyn_event *ev)
static int register_uprobe_event(struct trace_uprobe *tu);
static int unregister_uprobe_event(struct trace_uprobe *tu);
-static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs);
+static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data);
static int uretprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con,
- unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs);
+ unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data);
#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
static unsigned long adjust_stack_addr(unsigned long addr, unsigned int n)
@@ -1500,7 +1502,8 @@ trace_uprobe_register(struct trace_event_call *event, enum trace_reg type,
}
}
-static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs)
+static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data)
{
struct trace_uprobe *tu;
struct uprobe_dispatch_data udd;
@@ -1530,7 +1533,8 @@ static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs)
}
static int uretprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con,
- unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs)
+ unsigned long func, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ __u64 *data)
{
struct trace_uprobe *tu;
struct uprobe_dispatch_data udd;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
index 1fc16657cf42..e91ff5b285f0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static struct bin_attribute bin_attr_bpf_testmod_file __ro_after_init = {
static int
uprobe_ret_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *self, unsigned long func,
- struct pt_regs *regs)
+ struct pt_regs *regs, __u64 *data)
{
regs->ax = 0x12345678deadbeef;
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 01/14] uprobe: Add data pointer to consumer handlers Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 12:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-09-17 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 03/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach Jiri Olsa
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
This change allows the uprobe consumer to behave as session which
means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are connected in
a way that allows to:
- control execution of 'ret_handler' from 'handler' callback
- share data between 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks
The session concept fits to our common use case where we do filtering
on entry uprobe and based on the result we decide to run the return
uprobe (or not).
It's also convenient to share the data between session callbacks.
To achive this we are adding new return values the uprobe consumer
can return from 'handler' callback:
UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
- Ignore 'ret_handler' callback for this consumer.
UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
- Store cookie and pass it to 'ret_handler' (if defined).
We store shared data in the return_consumer object array as part of
the return_instance object. This way the handle_uretprobe_chain can
find related return_consumer and its shared data.
We also store entry handler return value, for cases when there are
multiple consumers on single uprobe and some of them are ignored and
some of them not, in which case the return probe gets installed and
we need to have a way to find out which consumer needs to be ignored.
The tricky part is when consumer is registered 'after' the uprobe
entry handler is hit. In such case this consumer's 'ret_handler' gets
executed as well, but it won't have the proper data pointer set,
so we can filter it out.
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/uprobes.h | 25 ++++++-
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
2 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index bb265a632b91..751b1dd4abe9 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -23,8 +23,20 @@ struct inode;
struct notifier_block;
struct page;
+/*
+ * Allowed return values from uprobe consumer's handler callback
+ * with following meaning:
+ *
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE
+ * - Remove the uprobe breakpoint from current->mm.
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
+ * - Ignore ret_handler callback for this consumer.
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
+ * - Store cookie and pass it to ret_handler (if defined).
+ */
#define UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE 1
-#define UPROBE_HANDLER_MASK 1
+#define UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE 2
+#define UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE 3
#define MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH 64
@@ -44,6 +56,8 @@ struct uprobe_consumer {
bool (*filter)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct mm_struct *mm);
struct list_head cons_node;
+
+ __u64 id; /* set when uprobe_consumer is registered */
};
#ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
@@ -83,14 +97,23 @@ struct uprobe_task {
unsigned int depth;
};
+struct return_consumer {
+ __u64 cookie;
+ __u64 id;
+ int rc;
+};
+
struct return_instance {
struct uprobe *uprobe;
unsigned long func;
unsigned long stack; /* stack pointer */
unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr; /* original return address */
bool chained; /* true, if instance is nested */
+ int consumers_cnt;
struct return_instance *next; /* keep as stack */
+
+ struct return_consumer consumers[] __counted_by(consumers_cnt);
};
enum rp_check {
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 4b7e590dc428..5d376cc9a983 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ struct uprobe {
struct rcu_head rcu;
loff_t offset;
loff_t ref_ctr_offset;
- unsigned long flags;
+ unsigned long flags; /* "unsigned long" so bitops work */
/*
* The generic code assumes that it has two members of unknown type
@@ -826,8 +826,11 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
static void consumer_add(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
{
+ static atomic64_t id;
+
down_write(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
list_add_rcu(&uc->cons_node, &uprobe->consumers);
+ uc->id = (__u64) atomic64_inc_return(&id);
up_write(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
}
@@ -1786,6 +1789,34 @@ static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void)
return current->utask;
}
+static size_t ri_size(int consumers_cnt)
+{
+ struct return_instance *ri;
+
+ return sizeof(*ri) + sizeof(ri->consumers[0]) * consumers_cnt;
+}
+
+#define DEF_CNT 4
+
+static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(void)
+{
+ struct return_instance *ri;
+
+ ri = kzalloc(ri_size(DEF_CNT), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ri)
+ return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+
+ ri->consumers_cnt = DEF_CNT;
+ return ri;
+}
+
+static struct return_instance *dup_return_instance(struct return_instance *old)
+{
+ size_t size = ri_size(old->consumers_cnt);
+
+ return kmemdup(old, size, GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
{
struct uprobe_task *n_utask;
@@ -1798,11 +1829,10 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
p = &n_utask->return_instances;
for (o = o_utask->return_instances; o; o = o->next) {
- n = kmalloc(sizeof(struct return_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
+ n = dup_return_instance(o);
if (!n)
return -ENOMEM;
- *n = *o;
/*
* uprobe's refcnt has to be positive at this point, kept by
* utask->return_instances items; return_instances can't be
@@ -1895,39 +1925,35 @@ static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained,
utask->return_instances = ri;
}
-static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
+static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ struct return_instance *ri)
{
- struct return_instance *ri;
struct uprobe_task *utask;
unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr, trampoline_vaddr;
bool chained;
if (!get_xol_area())
- return;
+ goto free;
utask = get_utask();
if (!utask)
- return;
+ goto free;
if (utask->depth >= MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH) {
printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "uprobe: omit uretprobe due to"
" nestedness limit pid/tgid=%d/%d\n",
current->pid, current->tgid);
- return;
+ goto free;
}
/* we need to bump refcount to store uprobe in utask */
if (!try_get_uprobe(uprobe))
- return;
-
- ri = kmalloc(sizeof(struct return_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!ri)
- goto fail;
+ goto free;
trampoline_vaddr = uprobe_get_trampoline_vaddr();
orig_ret_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(trampoline_vaddr, regs);
if (orig_ret_vaddr == -1)
- goto fail;
+ goto put;
/* drop the entries invalidated by longjmp() */
chained = (orig_ret_vaddr == trampoline_vaddr);
@@ -1945,7 +1971,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
* attack from user-space.
*/
uprobe_warn(current, "handle tail call");
- goto fail;
+ goto put;
}
orig_ret_vaddr = utask->return_instances->orig_ret_vaddr;
}
@@ -1960,9 +1986,10 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
utask->return_instances = ri;
return;
-fail:
- kfree(ri);
+put:
put_uprobe(uprobe);
+free:
+ kfree(ri);
}
/* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */
@@ -2114,35 +2141,94 @@ static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_rcu(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int *is_swb
return uprobe;
}
+static struct return_instance*
+push_consumer(struct return_instance *ri, int idx, __u64 id, __u64 cookie, int rc)
+{
+ if (unlikely(ri == ZERO_SIZE_PTR))
+ return ri;
+
+ if (unlikely(idx >= ri->consumers_cnt)) {
+ struct return_instance *old_ri = ri;
+
+ ri->consumers_cnt += DEF_CNT;
+ ri = krealloc(old_ri, ri_size(old_ri->consumers_cnt), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ri) {
+ kfree(old_ri);
+ return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+ }
+ }
+
+ ri->consumers[idx].id = id;
+ ri->consumers[idx].cookie = cookie;
+ ri->consumers[idx].rc = rc;
+ return ri;
+}
+
+static struct return_consumer *
+return_consumer_find(struct return_instance *ri, int *iter, int id)
+{
+ struct return_consumer *ric;
+ int idx = *iter;
+
+ for (ric = &ri->consumers[idx]; idx < ri->consumers_cnt; idx++, ric++) {
+ if (ric->id == id) {
+ *iter = idx + 1;
+ return ric;
+ }
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
- int remove = UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
- bool need_prep = false; /* prepare return uprobe, when needed */
- bool has_consumers = false;
+ bool has_consumers = false, remove = true, ignore = true;
+ struct return_instance *ri = NULL;
+ int push_idx = 0;
current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ __u64 cookie = 0;
int rc = 0;
if (uc->handler) {
- rc = uc->handler(uc, regs);
- WARN(rc & ~UPROBE_HANDLER_MASK,
+ rc = uc->handler(uc, regs, &cookie);
+ WARN(rc < 0 || rc > 3,
"bad rc=0x%x from %ps()\n", rc, uc->handler);
}
- if (uc->ret_handler)
- need_prep = true;
-
- remove &= rc;
+ remove &= rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
+ ignore &= rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE;
has_consumers = true;
+
+ if (!uc->ret_handler || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * If alloc_return_instance and push_consumer fail, the return probe
+ * won't be prepared, but we'll finish to execute all entry handlers.
+ *
+ * We need to store handler's return value in case the return uprobe
+ * gets installed and contains consumers that need to be ignored.
+ */
+ if (!ri)
+ ri = alloc_return_instance();
+
+ if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
+ ri = push_consumer(ri, push_idx++, uc->id, cookie, rc);
}
current->utask->auprobe = NULL;
- if (need_prep && !remove)
- prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs); /* put bp at return */
+ if (!ignore && !ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) {
+ /*
+ * The push_idx value has the final number of return consumers,
+ * and ri->consumers_cnt has number of allocated consumers.
+ */
+ ri->consumers_cnt = push_idx;
+ prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri);
+ }
if (remove && has_consumers) {
down_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
@@ -2161,14 +2247,18 @@ static void
handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
+ struct return_consumer *ric;
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
- int srcu_idx;
+ int srcu_idx, ric_idx = 0;
srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
+ if (ric && ric->rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
+ continue;
if (uc->ret_handler)
- uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
+ uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
}
srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 12:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-09-17 12:51 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2024-09-17 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
I don't see anything wrong after a quick glance, but I don't
really understand the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE logic, see below.
On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> + * UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> + * - Store cookie and pass it to ret_handler (if defined).
Cough ;) yes it was me who used this name in the previous discussion, but maybe
UPROBE_HANDLER_COOKIE
will look a bit better? Feel free to ignore.
> static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
...
> + if (!uc->ret_handler || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE)
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * If alloc_return_instance and push_consumer fail, the return probe
> + * won't be prepared, but we'll finish to execute all entry handlers.
> + *
> + * We need to store handler's return value in case the return uprobe
> + * gets installed and contains consumers that need to be ignored.
> + */
> + if (!ri)
> + ri = alloc_return_instance();
> +
> + if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> + ri = push_consumer(ri, push_idx++, uc->id, cookie, rc);
So this code allocates ri (which implies prepare_uretprobe!) and calls push_consumer()
even if rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE.
Why? The comment in uprobes.h says:
UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
- Ignore ret_handler callback for this consumer
but the ret_handler callback won't be ignored?
To me this code should do:
if (!uc->ret_handler || UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE || UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
continue;
if (!ri)
ri = alloc_return_instance();
if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE)
ri = push_consumer(...);
And,
> handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
...
> list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> + if (ric && ric->rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> + continue;
> if (uc->ret_handler)
> - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> }
the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE check above and the new ric->rc member should die,
if (!uc->ret_handler)
continue;
ric = return_consumer_find(...);
uc->ret_handler(..., ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
as we have already discussed, the session ret_handler(data) can simply do
// my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
// UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
if (!data)
return;
at the start.
Could you explain why this can't work?
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-17 12:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2024-09-17 12:51 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-22 15:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong after a quick glance, but I don't
> really understand the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE logic, see below.
>
> On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > + * UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> > + * - Store cookie and pass it to ret_handler (if defined).
>
> Cough ;) yes it was me who used this name in the previous discussion, but maybe
>
> UPROBE_HANDLER_COOKIE
>
> will look a bit better? Feel free to ignore.
ok, no fun it is..
>
> > static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> ...
> > + if (!uc->ret_handler || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If alloc_return_instance and push_consumer fail, the return probe
> > + * won't be prepared, but we'll finish to execute all entry handlers.
> > + *
> > + * We need to store handler's return value in case the return uprobe
> > + * gets installed and contains consumers that need to be ignored.
> > + */
> > + if (!ri)
> > + ri = alloc_return_instance();
> > +
> > + if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > + ri = push_consumer(ri, push_idx++, uc->id, cookie, rc);
>
> So this code allocates ri (which implies prepare_uretprobe!) and calls push_consumer()
> even if rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE.
>
> Why? The comment in uprobes.h says:
>
> UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
> - Ignore ret_handler callback for this consumer
>
> but the ret_handler callback won't be ignored?
>
> To me this code should do:
>
> if (!uc->ret_handler || UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE || UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> continue;
>
> if (!ri)
> ri = alloc_return_instance();
>
> if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE)
> ri = push_consumer(...);
>
> And,
>
> > handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
> ...
> > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> > + if (ric && ric->rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > + continue;
> > if (uc->ret_handler)
> > - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> > }
>
> the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE check above and the new ric->rc member should die,
>
> if (!uc->ret_handler)
> continue;
>
> ric = return_consumer_find(...);
> uc->ret_handler(..., ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
>
> as we have already discussed, the session ret_handler(data) can simply do
>
> // my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
> // UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> if (!data)
> return;
>
> at the start.
>
> Could you explain why this can't work?
I'll try ;-) it's for the case when consumer does not use UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
let's have 2 consumers on single uprobe, consumer-A returning UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
and the consumer-B returning zero, so we want the return uprobe installed, but we
want just consumer-B to be executed
- so uprobe gets installed and handle_uretprobe_chain goes over all consumers
calling ret_handler callback
- but we don't know consumer-A needs to be ignored, and it does not
expect cookie so we have no way to find out it needs to be ignored
the change solves this by storing also return value for consumer
if all consumers ignore the ret_handler callback return uprobe is not installed
jirka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-17 12:51 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-22 15:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-09-23 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2024-09-22 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
Damn, sorry for delay :/
And sorry, still can't understand, see below...
On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > To me this code should do:
> >
> > if (!uc->ret_handler || UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE || UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > continue;
> >
> > if (!ri)
> > ri = alloc_return_instance();
> >
> > if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE)
> > ri = push_consumer(...);
> >
> > And,
> >
> > > handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > ...
> > > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > > + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> > > + if (ric && ric->rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > > + continue;
> > > if (uc->ret_handler)
> > > - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > > + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> > > }
> >
> > the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE check above and the new ric->rc member should die,
> >
> > if (!uc->ret_handler)
> > continue;
> >
> > ric = return_consumer_find(...);
> > uc->ret_handler(..., ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> >
> > as we have already discussed, the session ret_handler(data) can simply do
> >
> > // my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
> > // UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> > if (!data)
> > return;
> >
> > at the start.
> >
> > Could you explain why this can't work?
>
> I'll try ;-) it's for the case when consumer does not use UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
>
> let's have 2 consumers on single uprobe, consumer-A returning UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
> and the consumer-B returning zero, so we want the return uprobe installed, but we
> want just consumer-B to be executed
>
> - so uprobe gets installed and handle_uretprobe_chain goes over all consumers
> calling ret_handler callback
>
> - but we don't know consumer-A needs to be ignored, and it does not
> expect cookie so we have no way to find out it needs to be ignored
How does this differ from the case when consumer-A returns _REMOVE but another
consumer returns 0?
But what I really can't understand is
and it does not
expect cookie so we have no way to find out it needs to be ignored
If we change the code as I suggested above, push_consumer() won't be called
if consumer-A returns UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE.
This means that handle_uretprobe_chain() -> return_consumer_find() will
return NULL, so handle_uretprobe_chain() won't pass the valid cookie to
consumer-A's ret_handler callback, it will pass data => NULL.
So, again, why can't consumer-A's ret_handler callback do
// my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
// UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
if (!data)
return;
at the start?
Why the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE case is more problematic than the
UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE case?
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-22 15:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2024-09-23 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-23 10:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-23 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 05:27:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Damn, sorry for delay :/
>
> And sorry, still can't understand, see below...
>
> On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > To me this code should do:
> > >
> > > if (!uc->ret_handler || UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE || UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > if (!ri)
> > > ri = alloc_return_instance();
> > >
> > > if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE)
> > > ri = push_consumer(...);
> > >
> > > And,
> > >
> > > > handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > ...
> > > > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > > > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > > > + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> > > > + if (ric && ric->rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > if (uc->ret_handler)
> > > > - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > > > + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > the UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE check above and the new ric->rc member should die,
> > >
> > > if (!uc->ret_handler)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > ric = return_consumer_find(...);
> > > uc->ret_handler(..., ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> > >
> > > as we have already discussed, the session ret_handler(data) can simply do
> > >
> > > // my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
> > > // UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> > > if (!data)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > at the start.
> > >
> > > Could you explain why this can't work?
> >
> > I'll try ;-) it's for the case when consumer does not use UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> >
> > let's have 2 consumers on single uprobe, consumer-A returning UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
> > and the consumer-B returning zero, so we want the return uprobe installed, but we
> > want just consumer-B to be executed
> >
> > - so uprobe gets installed and handle_uretprobe_chain goes over all consumers
> > calling ret_handler callback
> >
> > - but we don't know consumer-A needs to be ignored, and it does not
> > expect cookie so we have no way to find out it needs to be ignored
>
> How does this differ from the case when consumer-A returns _REMOVE but another
> consumer returns 0?
>
> But what I really can't understand is
>
> and it does not
> expect cookie so we have no way to find out it needs to be ignored
>
> If we change the code as I suggested above, push_consumer() won't be called
> if consumer-A returns UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE.
>
> This means that handle_uretprobe_chain() -> return_consumer_find() will
> return NULL, so handle_uretprobe_chain() won't pass the valid cookie to
> consumer-A's ret_handler callback, it will pass data => NULL.
>
> So, again, why can't consumer-A's ret_handler callback do
>
> // my ->handler() wasn't called or it didn't return
> // UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
> if (!data)
> return;
ok, I think I understand the issue now.. it all depends on 'handler' to return
either UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE or UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
my idea was to make the interface more generic, so some future uprobe user won't
depend on handler callback to return UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE and can just
return 0, but we can do that as follow up if it's ever needed
change below should do what you proposed originally
also on top of that.. I discussed with Andrii the possibility of dropping
the UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE completely and setup cookie for any consumer
that has both 'handler' and 'ret_handler' defined, wdyt?
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index bb265a632b91..5221080b1f5a 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -23,8 +23,20 @@ struct inode;
struct notifier_block;
struct page;
+/*
+ * Allowed return values from uprobe consumer's handler callback
+ * with following meaning:
+ *
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE
+ * - Remove the uprobe breakpoint from current->mm.
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE
+ * - Ignore ret_handler callback for this consumer.
+ * UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE
+ * - Store cookie and pass it to ret_handler (if defined).
+ */
#define UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE 1
-#define UPROBE_HANDLER_MASK 1
+#define UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE 2
+#define UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE 3
#define MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH 64
@@ -44,6 +56,8 @@ struct uprobe_consumer {
bool (*filter)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct mm_struct *mm);
struct list_head cons_node;
+
+ __u64 id; /* set when uprobe_consumer is registered */
};
#ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
@@ -83,14 +97,22 @@ struct uprobe_task {
unsigned int depth;
};
+struct return_consumer {
+ __u64 cookie;
+ __u64 id;
+};
+
struct return_instance {
struct uprobe *uprobe;
unsigned long func;
unsigned long stack; /* stack pointer */
unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr; /* original return address */
bool chained; /* true, if instance is nested */
+ int consumers_cnt;
struct return_instance *next; /* keep as stack */
+
+ struct return_consumer consumers[] __counted_by(consumers_cnt);
};
enum rp_check {
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 4b7e590dc428..0dca2f2ecf9c 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ struct uprobe {
struct rcu_head rcu;
loff_t offset;
loff_t ref_ctr_offset;
- unsigned long flags;
+ unsigned long flags; /* "unsigned long" so bitops work */
/*
* The generic code assumes that it has two members of unknown type
@@ -826,8 +826,11 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
static void consumer_add(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
{
+ static atomic64_t id;
+
down_write(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
list_add_rcu(&uc->cons_node, &uprobe->consumers);
+ uc->id = (__u64) atomic64_inc_return(&id);
up_write(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
}
@@ -1786,6 +1789,34 @@ static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void)
return current->utask;
}
+static size_t ri_size(int consumers_cnt)
+{
+ struct return_instance *ri;
+
+ return sizeof(*ri) + sizeof(ri->consumers[0]) * consumers_cnt;
+}
+
+#define DEF_CNT 4
+
+static struct return_instance *alloc_return_instance(void)
+{
+ struct return_instance *ri;
+
+ ri = kzalloc(ri_size(DEF_CNT), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ri)
+ return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+
+ ri->consumers_cnt = DEF_CNT;
+ return ri;
+}
+
+static struct return_instance *dup_return_instance(struct return_instance *old)
+{
+ size_t size = ri_size(old->consumers_cnt);
+
+ return kmemdup(old, size, GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
{
struct uprobe_task *n_utask;
@@ -1798,11 +1829,10 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct *t, struct uprobe_task *o_utask)
p = &n_utask->return_instances;
for (o = o_utask->return_instances; o; o = o->next) {
- n = kmalloc(sizeof(struct return_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
+ n = dup_return_instance(o);
if (!n)
return -ENOMEM;
- *n = *o;
/*
* uprobe's refcnt has to be positive at this point, kept by
* utask->return_instances items; return_instances can't be
@@ -1895,39 +1925,35 @@ static void cleanup_return_instances(struct uprobe_task *utask, bool chained,
utask->return_instances = ri;
}
-static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
+static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs,
+ struct return_instance *ri)
{
- struct return_instance *ri;
struct uprobe_task *utask;
unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr, trampoline_vaddr;
bool chained;
if (!get_xol_area())
- return;
+ goto free;
utask = get_utask();
if (!utask)
- return;
+ goto free;
if (utask->depth >= MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH) {
printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "uprobe: omit uretprobe due to"
" nestedness limit pid/tgid=%d/%d\n",
current->pid, current->tgid);
- return;
+ goto free;
}
/* we need to bump refcount to store uprobe in utask */
if (!try_get_uprobe(uprobe))
- return;
-
- ri = kmalloc(sizeof(struct return_instance), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!ri)
- goto fail;
+ goto free;
trampoline_vaddr = uprobe_get_trampoline_vaddr();
orig_ret_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(trampoline_vaddr, regs);
if (orig_ret_vaddr == -1)
- goto fail;
+ goto put;
/* drop the entries invalidated by longjmp() */
chained = (orig_ret_vaddr == trampoline_vaddr);
@@ -1945,7 +1971,7 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
* attack from user-space.
*/
uprobe_warn(current, "handle tail call");
- goto fail;
+ goto put;
}
orig_ret_vaddr = utask->return_instances->orig_ret_vaddr;
}
@@ -1960,9 +1986,10 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
utask->return_instances = ri;
return;
-fail:
- kfree(ri);
+put:
put_uprobe(uprobe);
+free:
+ kfree(ri);
}
/* Prepare to single-step probed instruction out of line. */
@@ -2114,35 +2141,90 @@ static struct uprobe *find_active_uprobe_rcu(unsigned long bp_vaddr, int *is_swb
return uprobe;
}
+static struct return_instance*
+push_consumer(struct return_instance *ri, int idx, __u64 id, __u64 cookie)
+{
+ if (unlikely(ri == ZERO_SIZE_PTR))
+ return ri;
+
+ if (unlikely(idx >= ri->consumers_cnt)) {
+ struct return_instance *old_ri = ri;
+
+ ri->consumers_cnt += DEF_CNT;
+ ri = krealloc(old_ri, ri_size(old_ri->consumers_cnt), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ri) {
+ kfree(old_ri);
+ return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+ }
+ }
+
+ ri->consumers[idx].id = id;
+ ri->consumers[idx].cookie = cookie;
+ return ri;
+}
+
+static struct return_consumer *
+return_consumer_find(struct return_instance *ri, int *iter, int id)
+{
+ struct return_consumer *ric;
+ int idx = *iter;
+
+ for (ric = &ri->consumers[idx]; idx < ri->consumers_cnt; idx++, ric++) {
+ if (ric->id == id) {
+ *iter = idx + 1;
+ return ric;
+ }
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static bool ignore_ret_handler(int rc)
+{
+ return rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE || rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE;
+}
+
static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
- int remove = UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
- bool need_prep = false; /* prepare return uprobe, when needed */
- bool has_consumers = false;
+ bool has_consumers = false, remove = true;
+ struct return_instance *ri = NULL;
+ int push_idx = 0;
current->utask->auprobe = &uprobe->arch;
list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ __u64 cookie = 0;
int rc = 0;
if (uc->handler) {
- rc = uc->handler(uc, regs);
- WARN(rc & ~UPROBE_HANDLER_MASK,
+ rc = uc->handler(uc, regs, &cookie);
+ WARN(rc < 0 || rc > 3,
"bad rc=0x%x from %ps()\n", rc, uc->handler);
}
- if (uc->ret_handler)
- need_prep = true;
-
- remove &= rc;
+ remove &= rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
has_consumers = true;
+
+ if (!uc->ret_handler || ignore_ret_handler(rc))
+ continue;
+
+ if (!ri)
+ ri = alloc_return_instance();
+
+ if (rc == UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE)
+ ri = push_consumer(ri, push_idx++, uc->id, cookie);
}
current->utask->auprobe = NULL;
- if (need_prep && !remove)
- prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs); /* put bp at return */
+ if (!ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) {
+ /*
+ * The push_idx value has the final number of return consumers,
+ * and ri->consumers_cnt has number of allocated consumers.
+ */
+ ri->consumers_cnt = push_idx;
+ prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri);
+ }
if (remove && has_consumers) {
down_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
@@ -2161,14 +2243,16 @@ static void
handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
+ struct return_consumer *ric;
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
- int srcu_idx;
+ int srcu_idx, ric_idx = 0;
srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
+ ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
if (uc->ret_handler)
- uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
+ uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
}
srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-23 8:05 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-23 10:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-09-23 11:02 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2024-09-23 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On 09/23, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> change below should do what you proposed originally
LGTM, just one nit below.
But I guess you need to do this on top of bpf/bpf.git, Andrii has already
applied your series.
And to remind, 02/14 must be fixed in any case unless I am totally confused,
handler_chain() can leak return_instance.
> also on top of that.. I discussed with Andrii the possibility of dropping
> the UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE completely and setup cookie for any consumer
> that has both 'handler' and 'ret_handler' defined, wdyt?
Up to you. As I said from the very beginning I won't insist on _IWANTMYCOOKIE.
> list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> if (uc->ret_handler)
> - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> }
> srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
return_consumer_find() makes no sense if !uc->ret_handler, can you move
ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
into the "if (uc->ret_handler)" block?
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-23 10:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2024-09-23 11:02 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-23 12:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-23 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Jiri Olsa, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:05:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > change below should do what you proposed originally
>
> LGTM, just one nit below.
>
> But I guess you need to do this on top of bpf/bpf.git, Andrii has already
> applied your series.
that seems confusing but looks like just that one fix with the
commit link in [1] was applied
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/172708047825.3261420.5126267811201364070.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/T/#mb065649b5ab8f7ea5b03c215bdc6555a0b76c0d7
>
> And to remind, 02/14 must be fixed in any case unless I am totally confused,
> handler_chain() can leak return_instance.
yep it was missing kfree, but it's not needed in this new version
>
> > also on top of that.. I discussed with Andrii the possibility of dropping
> > the UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE completely and setup cookie for any consumer
> > that has both 'handler' and 'ret_handler' defined, wdyt?
>
> Up to you. As I said from the very beginning I won't insist on _IWANTMYCOOKIE.
ok
>
> > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
> > if (uc->ret_handler)
> > - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> > }
> > srcu_read_unlock(&uprobes_srcu, srcu_idx);
>
> return_consumer_find() makes no sense if !uc->ret_handler, can you move
>
> ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &ric_idx, uc->id);
>
> into the "if (uc->ret_handler)" block?
ok, will move that
thanks,
jirka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-23 11:02 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-23 12:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2024-09-23 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On 09/23, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:05:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/23, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > change below should do what you proposed originally
> >
> > LGTM, just one nit below.
> >
> > But I guess you need to do this on top of bpf/bpf.git, Andrii has already
> > applied your series.
>
> that seems confusing
Yes ;)
> but looks like just that one fix with the
> commit link in [1] was applied
Ah, OK.
> > And to remind, 02/14 must be fixed in any case unless I am totally confused,
> > handler_chain() can leak return_instance.
>
> yep it was missing kfree, but it's not needed in this new version
Yes, yes, the new version looks fine to me.
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 12:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2024-09-17 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2024-09-17 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo,
Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel,
linux-trace-kernel
On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
...
> + if (!ignore && !ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) {
> + /*
> + * The push_idx value has the final number of return consumers,
> + * and ri->consumers_cnt has number of allocated consumers.
> + */
> + ri->consumers_cnt = push_idx;
> + prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri);
> + }
This looks wrong. ri is not kfreed if ignore == true.
But see my previous email, if we change this code as I tried to suggest
the problem goes away and handler_chain() doesn't need "bool ignore".
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCHv4 03/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 01/14] uprobe: Add data pointer to consumer handlers Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 04/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session context Jiri Olsa
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding support to attach BPF program for entry and return probe
of the same function. This is common use case which at the moment
requires to create two uprobe multi links.
Adding new BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION attach type that instructs
kernel to attach single link program to both entry and exit probe.
It's possible to control execution of the BPF program on return
probe simply by returning zero or non zero from the entry BPF
program execution to execute or not the BPF program on return
probe respectively.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 9 ++++++--
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 1 +
5 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 35bcf52dbc65..1d93cb014884 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1116,6 +1116,7 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
BPF_NETKIT_PRIMARY,
BPF_NETKIT_PEER,
BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION,
+ BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION,
__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE
};
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index bf6c5f685ea2..1347f3000bd0 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -4049,10 +4049,14 @@ static int bpf_prog_attach_check_attach_type(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI &&
attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
return -EINVAL;
+ if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION &&
+ attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION)
+ return -EINVAL;
if (attach_type != BPF_PERF_EVENT &&
attach_type != BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI &&
attach_type != BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION &&
- attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
+ attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI &&
+ attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS:
@@ -5315,7 +5319,8 @@ static int link_create(union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr)
else if (attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI ||
attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION)
ret = bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(attr, prog);
- else if (attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
+ else if (attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI ||
+ attr->link_create.attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION)
ret = bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach(attr, prog);
break;
default:
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index de241503c8fb..63ea457af16a 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -1645,6 +1645,17 @@ static inline bool is_kprobe_session(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION;
}
+static inline bool is_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI ||
+ prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION;
+}
+
+static inline bool is_uprobe_session(const struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION;
+}
+
static const struct bpf_func_proto *
kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
{
@@ -1662,13 +1673,13 @@ kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
case BPF_FUNC_get_func_ip:
if (is_kprobe_multi(prog))
return &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_kprobe_multi;
- if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
+ if (is_uprobe_multi(prog))
return &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_uprobe_multi;
return &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_kprobe;
case BPF_FUNC_get_attach_cookie:
if (is_kprobe_multi(prog))
return &bpf_get_attach_cookie_proto_kmulti;
- if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
+ if (is_uprobe_multi(prog))
return &bpf_get_attach_cookie_proto_umulti;
return &bpf_get_attach_cookie_proto_trace;
default:
@@ -3162,6 +3173,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
u64 cookie;
struct uprobe *uprobe;
struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
+ bool session;
};
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link {
@@ -3336,9 +3348,13 @@ uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
__u64 *data)
{
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
+ int ret;
uprobe = container_of(con, struct bpf_uprobe, consumer);
- return uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs);
+ ret = uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs);
+ if (uprobe->session)
+ return ret ? UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE : UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE;
+ return ret;
}
static int
@@ -3348,6 +3364,12 @@ uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, unsigned long func, s
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
uprobe = container_of(con, struct bpf_uprobe, consumer);
+ /*
+ * There's chance we could get called with NULL data if we registered uprobe
+ * after it hit entry but before it hit return probe, just ignore it.
+ */
+ if (uprobe->session && !data)
+ return 0;
return uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, func, regs);
}
@@ -3387,7 +3409,7 @@ int bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI)
+ if (!is_uprobe_multi(prog))
return -EINVAL;
flags = attr->link_create.uprobe_multi.flags;
@@ -3463,11 +3485,12 @@ int bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
uprobes[i].link = link;
- if (flags & BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN)
- uprobes[i].consumer.ret_handler = uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler;
- else
+ if (!(flags & BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN))
uprobes[i].consumer.handler = uprobe_multi_link_handler;
-
+ if (flags & BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN || is_uprobe_session(prog))
+ uprobes[i].consumer.ret_handler = uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler;
+ if (is_uprobe_session(prog))
+ uprobes[i].session = true;
if (pid)
uprobes[i].consumer.filter = uprobe_multi_link_filter;
}
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 35bcf52dbc65..1d93cb014884 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1116,6 +1116,7 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
BPF_NETKIT_PRIMARY,
BPF_NETKIT_PEER,
BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION,
+ BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION,
__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE
};
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index a3be6f8fac09..274441674f92 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ static const char * const attach_type_name[] = {
[BPF_NETKIT_PRIMARY] = "netkit_primary",
[BPF_NETKIT_PEER] = "netkit_peer",
[BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION] = "trace_kprobe_session",
+ [BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION] = "trace_uprobe_session",
};
static const char * const link_type_name[] = {
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 04/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session context
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 03/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 05/14] bpf: Allow return values 0 and 1 for uprobe/kprobe session Jiri Olsa
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Placing bpf_session_run_ctx layer in between bpf_run_ctx and
bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx, so the session data can be retrieved
from uprobe_multi link.
Plus granting session kfuncs access to uprobe session programs.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 63ea457af16a..b6f377f1ce5f 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3186,7 +3186,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link {
};
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx {
- struct bpf_run_ctx run_ctx;
+ struct bpf_session_run_ctx session_ctx;
unsigned long entry_ip;
struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
};
@@ -3299,10 +3299,15 @@ static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_uprobe_multi_link_lops = {
static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe,
unsigned long entry_ip,
- struct pt_regs *regs)
+ struct pt_regs *regs,
+ bool is_return, void *data)
{
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link *link = uprobe->link;
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx run_ctx = {
+ .session_ctx = {
+ .is_return = is_return,
+ .data = data,
+ },
.entry_ip = entry_ip,
.uprobe = uprobe,
};
@@ -3321,7 +3326,7 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe,
migrate_disable();
- old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx);
+ old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.session_ctx.run_ctx);
err = bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs);
bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx);
@@ -3351,7 +3356,7 @@ uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
int ret;
uprobe = container_of(con, struct bpf_uprobe, consumer);
- ret = uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs);
+ ret = uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs, false, data);
if (uprobe->session)
return ret ? UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE : UPROBE_HANDLER_IWANTMYCOOKIE;
return ret;
@@ -3370,14 +3375,15 @@ uprobe_multi_link_ret_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, unsigned long func, s
*/
if (uprobe->session && !data)
return 0;
- return uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, func, regs);
+ return uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, func, regs, true, data);
}
static u64 bpf_uprobe_multi_entry_ip(struct bpf_run_ctx *ctx)
{
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx *run_ctx;
- run_ctx = container_of(current->bpf_ctx, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx, run_ctx);
+ run_ctx = container_of(current->bpf_ctx, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx,
+ session_ctx.run_ctx);
return run_ctx->entry_ip;
}
@@ -3385,7 +3391,8 @@ static u64 bpf_uprobe_multi_cookie(struct bpf_run_ctx *ctx)
{
struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx *run_ctx;
- run_ctx = container_of(current->bpf_ctx, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx, run_ctx);
+ run_ctx = container_of(current->bpf_ctx, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_run_ctx,
+ session_ctx.run_ctx);
return run_ctx->uprobe->cookie;
}
@@ -3579,7 +3586,7 @@ static int bpf_kprobe_multi_filter(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 kfunc_id)
if (!btf_id_set8_contains(&kprobe_multi_kfunc_set_ids, kfunc_id))
return 0;
- if (!is_kprobe_session(prog))
+ if (!is_kprobe_session(prog) && !is_uprobe_session(prog))
return -EACCES;
return 0;
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 05/14] bpf: Allow return values 0 and 1 for uprobe/kprobe session
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 04/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session context Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 06/14] libbpf: Fix uretprobe.multi.s programs auto attachment Jiri Olsa
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
The uprobe and kprobe session program can return only 0 or 1,
instruct verifier to check for that.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d8520095ca03..988858fc37e5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -15668,6 +15668,16 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
return -ENOTSUPP;
}
break;
+ case BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE:
+ switch (env->prog->expected_attach_type) {
+ case BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION:
+ case BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION:
+ range = retval_range(0, 1);
+ break;
+ default:
+ return 0;
+ }
+ break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP:
range = retval_range(SK_DROP, SK_PASS);
break;
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 06/14] libbpf: Fix uretprobe.multi.s programs auto attachment
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 05/14] bpf: Allow return values 0 and 1 for uprobe/kprobe session Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 07/14] libbpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach Jiri Olsa
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
As reported by Andrii we don't currently recognize uretprobe.multi.s
programs as return probes due to using (wrong) strcmp function.
Using str_has_pfx() instead to match uretprobe.multi prefix.
Tests are passing, because the return program was executed
as entry program and all counts were incremented properly.
Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240910125336.3056271-1-jolsa@kernel.org
---
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 274441674f92..6917d4a0bd4e 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -11684,7 +11684,7 @@ static int attach_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_program *prog, long cookie, stru
ret = 0;
break;
case 3:
- opts.retprobe = strcmp(probe_type, "uretprobe.multi") == 0;
+ opts.retprobe = str_has_pfx(probe_type, "uretprobe.multi");
*link = bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(prog, -1, binary_path, func_name, &opts);
ret = libbpf_get_error(*link);
break;
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 07/14] libbpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 06/14] libbpf: Fix uretprobe.multi.s programs auto attachment Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 08/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session test Jiri Olsa
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding support to attach program in uprobe session mode
with bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi function.
Adding session bool to bpf_uprobe_multi_opts struct that allows
to load and attach the bpf program via uprobe session.
the attachment to create uprobe multi session.
Also adding new program loader section that allows:
SEC("uprobe.session/bpf_fentry_test*")
and loads/attaches uprobe program as uprobe session.
Adding sleepable hook (uprobe.session.s) as well.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 1 +
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
index 2a4c71501a17..becdfa701c75 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
@@ -776,6 +776,7 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd,
return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
break;
case BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI:
+ case BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION:
attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, uprobe_multi.flags, 0);
attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.cnt = OPTS_GET(opts, uprobe_multi.cnt, 0);
attr.link_create.uprobe_multi.path = ptr_to_u64(OPTS_GET(opts, uprobe_multi.path, 0));
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 6917d4a0bd4e..83e56856b2b4 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -9363,8 +9363,10 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
SEC_DEF("kprobe.session+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION, SEC_NONE, attach_kprobe_session),
SEC_DEF("uprobe.multi+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe_multi),
SEC_DEF("uretprobe.multi+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe_multi),
+ SEC_DEF("uprobe.session+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe_multi),
SEC_DEF("uprobe.multi.s+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_uprobe_multi),
SEC_DEF("uretprobe.multi.s+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_uprobe_multi),
+ SEC_DEF("uprobe.session.s+", KPROBE, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION, SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_uprobe_multi),
SEC_DEF("ksyscall+", KPROBE, 0, SEC_NONE, attach_ksyscall),
SEC_DEF("kretsyscall+", KPROBE, 0, SEC_NONE, attach_ksyscall),
SEC_DEF("usdt+", KPROBE, 0, SEC_USDT, attach_usdt),
@@ -11684,7 +11686,10 @@ static int attach_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_program *prog, long cookie, stru
ret = 0;
break;
case 3:
- opts.retprobe = str_has_pfx(probe_type, "uretprobe.multi");
+ if (str_has_pfx(probe_type, "uprobe.session"))
+ opts.session = true;
+ else
+ opts.retprobe = str_has_pfx(probe_type, "uretprobe.multi");
*link = bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(prog, -1, binary_path, func_name, &opts);
ret = libbpf_get_error(*link);
break;
@@ -11933,10 +11938,12 @@ bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_program *prog,
const unsigned long *ref_ctr_offsets = NULL, *offsets = NULL;
LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, lopts);
unsigned long *resolved_offsets = NULL;
+ enum bpf_attach_type attach_type;
int err = 0, link_fd, prog_fd;
struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
char errmsg[STRERR_BUFSIZE];
char full_path[PATH_MAX];
+ bool retprobe, session;
const __u64 *cookies;
const char **syms;
size_t cnt;
@@ -12007,12 +12014,20 @@ bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_program *prog,
offsets = resolved_offsets;
}
+ retprobe = OPTS_GET(opts, retprobe, false);
+ session = OPTS_GET(opts, session, false);
+
+ if (retprobe && session)
+ return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL);
+
+ attach_type = session ? BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION : BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI;
+
lopts.uprobe_multi.path = path;
lopts.uprobe_multi.offsets = offsets;
lopts.uprobe_multi.ref_ctr_offsets = ref_ctr_offsets;
lopts.uprobe_multi.cookies = cookies;
lopts.uprobe_multi.cnt = cnt;
- lopts.uprobe_multi.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, retprobe, false) ? BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN : 0;
+ lopts.uprobe_multi.flags = retprobe ? BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN : 0;
if (pid == 0)
pid = getpid();
@@ -12026,7 +12041,7 @@ bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(const struct bpf_program *prog,
}
link->detach = &bpf_link__detach_fd;
- link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, 0, BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI, &lopts);
+ link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, 0, attach_type, &lopts);
if (link_fd < 0) {
err = -errno;
pr_warn("prog '%s': failed to attach multi-uprobe: %s\n",
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
index 64a6a3d323e3..f6a7835dc519 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
@@ -569,10 +569,12 @@ struct bpf_uprobe_multi_opts {
size_t cnt;
/* create return uprobes */
bool retprobe;
+ /* create session kprobes */
+ bool session;
size_t :0;
};
-#define bpf_uprobe_multi_opts__last_field retprobe
+#define bpf_uprobe_multi_opts__last_field session
/**
* @brief **bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi()** attaches a BPF program
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 08/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session test
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 07/14] libbpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 09/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session cookie test Jiri Olsa
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding uprobe session test and testing that the entry program
return value controls execution of the return probe program.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 47 ++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 118 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index bf6ca8e3eb13..aaafd80623c5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_bench.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_usdt.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "testing_helpers.h"
#include "../sdt.h"
@@ -615,6 +616,50 @@ static void test_link_api(void)
__test_link_api(child);
}
+static void test_session_skel_api(void)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_session *skel = NULL;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_multi_opts, opts);
+ struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = uprobe_multi_session__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_multi_session__open_and_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ skel->bss->pid = getpid();
+ skel->bss->user_ptr = test_data;
+
+ err = uprobe_multi_session__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_multi_session__attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* trigger all probes */
+ skel->bss->uprobe_multi_func_1_addr = (__u64) uprobe_multi_func_1;
+ skel->bss->uprobe_multi_func_2_addr = (__u64) uprobe_multi_func_2;
+ skel->bss->uprobe_multi_func_3_addr = (__u64) uprobe_multi_func_3;
+
+ uprobe_multi_func_1();
+ uprobe_multi_func_2();
+ uprobe_multi_func_3();
+
+ /*
+ * We expect 2 for uprobe_multi_func_2 because it runs both entry/return probe,
+ * uprobe_multi_func_[13] run just the entry probe. All expected numbers are
+ * doubled, because we run extra test for sleepable session.
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[0], 2, "uprobe_multi_func_1_result");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[1], 4, "uprobe_multi_func_2_result");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[2], 2, "uprobe_multi_func_3_result");
+
+ /* We expect increase in 3 entry and 1 return session calls -> 4 */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_multi_sleep_result, 4, "uprobe_multi_sleep_result");
+
+cleanup:
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+ uprobe_multi_session__destroy(skel);
+}
+
static void test_bench_attach_uprobe(void)
{
long attach_start_ns = 0, attach_end_ns = 0;
@@ -703,4 +748,6 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_bench_attach_usdt();
if (test__start_subtest("attach_api_fails"))
test_attach_api_fails();
+ if (test__start_subtest("session"))
+ test_session_skel_api();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..30bff90b68dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session.c
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+__u64 uprobe_multi_func_1_addr = 0;
+__u64 uprobe_multi_func_2_addr = 0;
+__u64 uprobe_multi_func_3_addr = 0;
+
+__u64 uprobe_session_result[3] = {};
+__u64 uprobe_multi_sleep_result = 0;
+
+void *user_ptr = 0;
+int pid = 0;
+
+static int uprobe_multi_check(void *ctx, bool is_return)
+{
+ const __u64 funcs[] = {
+ uprobe_multi_func_1_addr,
+ uprobe_multi_func_2_addr,
+ uprobe_multi_func_3_addr,
+ };
+ unsigned int i;
+ __u64 addr;
+
+ if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
+ return 1;
+
+ addr = bpf_get_func_ip(ctx);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(funcs); i++) {
+ if (funcs[i] == addr) {
+ uprobe_session_result[i]++;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* only uprobe_multi_func_2 executes return probe */
+ if ((addr == uprobe_multi_func_1_addr) ||
+ (addr == uprobe_multi_func_3_addr))
+ return 1;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_*")
+int uprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return());
+}
+
+static __always_inline bool verify_sleepable_user_copy(void)
+{
+ char data[9];
+
+ bpf_copy_from_user(data, sizeof(data), user_ptr);
+ return bpf_strncmp(data, sizeof(data), "test_data") == 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session.s//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_*")
+int uprobe_sleepable(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ if (verify_sleepable_user_copy())
+ uprobe_multi_sleep_result++;
+ return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return());
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 09/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session cookie test
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 08/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session test Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 10/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session recursive test Jiri Olsa
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding uprobe session test that verifies the cookie value
get properly propagated from entry to return program.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 31 ++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index aaafd80623c5..edb71b9293c9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi_bench.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_usdt.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "testing_helpers.h"
#include "../sdt.h"
@@ -660,6 +661,34 @@ static void test_session_skel_api(void)
uprobe_multi_session__destroy(skel);
}
+static void test_session_cookie_skel_api(void)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_session_cookie *skel = NULL;
+ int err;
+
+ skel = uprobe_multi_session_cookie__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_multi_session_cookie__open_and_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ skel->bss->pid = getpid();
+
+ err = uprobe_multi_session_cookie__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_multi_session_cookie__attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* trigger all probes */
+ uprobe_multi_func_1();
+ uprobe_multi_func_2();
+ uprobe_multi_func_3();
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_1_result, 1, "test_uprobe_1_result");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_2_result, 2, "test_uprobe_2_result");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_3_result, 3, "test_uprobe_3_result");
+
+cleanup:
+ uprobe_multi_session_cookie__destroy(skel);
+}
+
static void test_bench_attach_uprobe(void)
{
long attach_start_ns = 0, attach_end_ns = 0;
@@ -750,4 +779,6 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_attach_api_fails();
if (test__start_subtest("session"))
test_session_skel_api();
+ if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie"))
+ test_session_cookie_skel_api();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5befdf944dc6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+int pid = 0;
+
+__u64 test_uprobe_1_result = 0;
+__u64 test_uprobe_2_result = 0;
+__u64 test_uprobe_3_result = 0;
+
+static int check_cookie(__u64 val, __u64 *result)
+{
+ __u64 *cookie;
+
+ if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
+ return 1;
+
+ cookie = bpf_session_cookie();
+
+ if (bpf_session_is_return())
+ *result = *cookie == val ? val : 0;
+ else
+ *cookie = val;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
+int uprobe_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return check_cookie(1, &test_uprobe_1_result);
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_2")
+int uprobe_2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return check_cookie(2, &test_uprobe_2_result);
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_3")
+int uprobe_3(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return check_cookie(3, &test_uprobe_3_result);
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 10/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session recursive test
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 09/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session cookie test Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 11/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session verifier test for return value Jiri Olsa
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Adding uprobe session test that verifies the cookie value is stored
properly when single uprobe-ed function is executed recursively.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
.../progs/uprobe_multi_session_recursive.c | 44 ++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 101 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_recursive.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index edb71b9293c9..39d505f27784 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi_usdt.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_session_recursive.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "testing_helpers.h"
#include "../sdt.h"
@@ -34,6 +35,12 @@ noinline void usdt_trigger(void)
STAP_PROBE(test, pid_filter_usdt);
}
+noinline void uprobe_session_recursive(int i)
+{
+ if (i)
+ uprobe_session_recursive(i - 1);
+}
+
struct child {
int go[2];
int c2p[2]; /* child -> parent channel */
@@ -689,6 +696,54 @@ static void test_session_cookie_skel_api(void)
uprobe_multi_session_cookie__destroy(skel);
}
+static void test_session_recursive_skel_api(void)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_session_recursive *skel = NULL;
+ int i, err;
+
+ skel = uprobe_multi_session_recursive__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_multi_session_recursive__open_and_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ skel->bss->pid = getpid();
+
+ err = uprobe_multi_session_recursive__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_multi_session_recursive__attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skel->bss->test_uprobe_cookie_entry); i++)
+ skel->bss->test_uprobe_cookie_entry[i] = i + 1;
+
+ uprobe_session_recursive(5);
+
+ /*
+ * entry uprobe:
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(5) { *cookie = 1, return 0
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(4) { *cookie = 2, return 1
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(3) { *cookie = 3, return 0
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(2) { *cookie = 4, return 1
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(1) { *cookie = 5, return 0
+ * uprobe_session_recursive(0) { *cookie = 6, return 1
+ * return uprobe:
+ * } i = 0 not executed
+ * } i = 1 test_uprobe_cookie_return[0] = 5
+ * } i = 2 not executed
+ * } i = 3 test_uprobe_cookie_return[1] = 3
+ * } i = 4 not executed
+ * } i = 5 test_uprobe_cookie_return[2] = 1
+ */
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->idx_entry, 6, "idx_entry");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->idx_return, 3, "idx_return");
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_cookie_return[0], 5, "test_uprobe_cookie_return[0]");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_cookie_return[1], 3, "test_uprobe_cookie_return[1]");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_uprobe_cookie_return[2], 1, "test_uprobe_cookie_return[2]");
+
+cleanup:
+ uprobe_multi_session_recursive__destroy(skel);
+}
+
static void test_bench_attach_uprobe(void)
{
long attach_start_ns = 0, attach_end_ns = 0;
@@ -781,4 +836,6 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_session_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie"))
test_session_cookie_skel_api();
+ if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie_recursive"))
+ test_session_recursive_skel_api();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_recursive.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_recursive.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8fbcd69fae22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_recursive.c
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+int pid = 0;
+
+int idx_entry = 0;
+int idx_return = 0;
+
+__u64 test_uprobe_cookie_entry[6];
+__u64 test_uprobe_cookie_return[3];
+
+static int check_cookie(void)
+{
+ __u64 *cookie = bpf_session_cookie();
+
+ if (bpf_session_is_return()) {
+ if (idx_return >= ARRAY_SIZE(test_uprobe_cookie_return))
+ return 1;
+ test_uprobe_cookie_return[idx_return++] = *cookie;
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ if (idx_entry >= ARRAY_SIZE(test_uprobe_cookie_entry))
+ return 1;
+ *cookie = test_uprobe_cookie_entry[idx_entry];
+ return idx_entry++ % 2;
+}
+
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_session_recursive")
+int uprobe_recursive(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
+ return 1;
+
+ return check_cookie();
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 11/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session verifier test for return value
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 10/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session recursive test Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 12/14] selftests/bpf: Add kprobe " Jiri Olsa
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Making sure uprobe.session program can return only [0,1] values.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 2 ++
.../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_verifier.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index 39d505f27784..210cdb620ee0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_recursive.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_verifier.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "testing_helpers.h"
#include "../sdt.h"
@@ -838,4 +839,5 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_session_cookie_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie_recursive"))
test_session_recursive_skel_api();
+ RUN_TESTS(uprobe_multi_verifier);
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_verifier.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fe49f2cb5360
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_verifier.c
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <bpf/usdt.bpf.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+
+SEC("uprobe.session")
+__success
+int uprobe_sesison_return_0(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session")
+__success
+int uprobe_sesison_return_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session")
+__failure
+__msg("At program exit the register R0 has smin=2 smax=2 should have been in [0, 1]")
+int uprobe_sesison_return_2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 2;
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 12/14] selftests/bpf: Add kprobe session verifier test for return value
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 11/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session verifier test for return value Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 13/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single consumer test Jiri Olsa
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Making sure kprobe.session program can return only [0,1] values.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 2 ++
.../bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_verifier.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
index 960c9323d1e0..66ab1cae923e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include "kprobe_multi_override.skel.h"
#include "kprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
#include "kprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
+#include "kprobe_multi_verifier.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "bpf/hashmap.h"
@@ -764,4 +765,5 @@ void test_kprobe_multi_test(void)
test_session_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie"))
test_session_cookie_skel_api();
+ RUN_TESTS(kprobe_multi_verifier);
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_verifier.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..288577e81deb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_verifier.c
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <bpf/usdt.bpf.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+
+SEC("kprobe.session")
+__success
+int kprobe_session_return_0(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("kprobe.session")
+__success
+int kprobe_session_return_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("kprobe.session")
+__failure
+__msg("At program exit the register R0 has smin=2 smax=2 should have been in [0, 1]")
+int kprobe_session_return_2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 2;
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 13/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single consumer test
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 12/14] selftests/bpf: Add kprobe " Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 14/14] selftests/bpf: Add consumers stress test on single uprobe Jiri Olsa
2024-09-23 8:34 ` [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Testing that the session ret_handler bypass works on single
uprobe with multiple consumers, each with different session
ignore return value.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 33 ++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index 210cdb620ee0..594aa8c06f58 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi_bench.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_usdt.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_session_single.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_recursive.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_verifier.skel.h"
@@ -669,6 +670,36 @@ static void test_session_skel_api(void)
uprobe_multi_session__destroy(skel);
}
+static void test_session_single_skel_api(void)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_session_single *skel = NULL;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_multi_opts, opts);
+ int err;
+
+ skel = uprobe_multi_session_single__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_multi_session_single__open_and_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ skel->bss->pid = getpid();
+
+ err = uprobe_multi_session_single__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "uprobe_multi_session_single__attach"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ uprobe_multi_func_1();
+
+ /*
+ * We expect consumer 0 and 2 to trigger just entry handler (value 1)
+ * and consumer 1 to hit both (value 2).
+ */
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[0], 1, "uprobe_session_result_0");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[1], 2, "uprobe_session_result_1");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->uprobe_session_result[2], 1, "uprobe_session_result_2");
+
+cleanup:
+ uprobe_multi_session_single__destroy(skel);
+}
+
static void test_session_cookie_skel_api(void)
{
struct uprobe_multi_session_cookie *skel = NULL;
@@ -835,6 +866,8 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_attach_api_fails();
if (test__start_subtest("session"))
test_session_skel_api();
+ if (test__start_subtest("session_single"))
+ test_session_single_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie"))
test_session_cookie_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie_recursive"))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1fa53d3785f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_session_single.c
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include "bpf_kfuncs.h"
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+__u64 uprobe_session_result[3] = {};
+int pid = 0;
+
+static int uprobe_multi_check(void *ctx, bool is_return, int idx)
+{
+ if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
+ return 1;
+
+ uprobe_session_result[idx]++;
+
+ /* only consumer 1 executes return probe */
+ if (idx == 0 || idx == 2)
+ return 1;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
+int uprobe_0(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 0);
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
+int uprobe_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 1);
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session//proc/self/exe:uprobe_multi_func_1")
+int uprobe_2(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return uprobe_multi_check(ctx, bpf_session_is_return(), 2);
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCHv4 14/14] selftests/bpf: Add consumers stress test on single uprobe
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 13/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single consumer test Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-17 8:50 ` Jiri Olsa
2024-09-23 8:34 ` [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2024-09-17 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Alexei Starovoitov,
Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: bpf, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Steven Rostedt,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
We create multiple threads each trying to attach and detach uprobe
consumers on the same uprobe, while main thread is hitting on that
uprobe. All that for 5 seconds.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.c | 29 +++++++
2 files changed, 111 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
index 594aa8c06f58..dcc128507212 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <test_progs.h>
+#include <time.h>
#include "uprobe_multi.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_bench.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_usdt.skel.h"
@@ -10,6 +11,7 @@
#include "uprobe_multi_session_single.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_cookie.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_session_recursive.skel.h"
+#include "uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.skel.h"
#include "uprobe_multi_verifier.skel.h"
#include "bpf/libbpf_internal.h"
#include "testing_helpers.h"
@@ -848,6 +850,84 @@ static void test_bench_attach_usdt(void)
printf("%s: detached in %7.3lfs\n", __func__, detach_delta);
}
+static int done;
+
+static void *worker(void *p)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_consumer_stress *skel = p;
+ struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
+
+ srand(time(NULL));
+
+ while (!done) {
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_uprobe_multi_opts, opts);
+ struct bpf_program *prog;
+
+ switch (rand() % 4) {
+ case 0:
+ prog = skel->progs.uprobe_session_0;
+ opts.session = true;
+ break;
+ case 1:
+ prog = skel->progs.uprobe_session_1;
+ opts.session = true;
+ break;
+ case 2:
+ prog = skel->progs.uprobe;
+ break;
+ case 3:
+ prog = skel->progs.uretprobe;
+ opts.retprobe = true;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach_uprobe_multi(prog, -1, "/proc/self/exe",
+ "uprobe_multi_func_1", &opts);
+ bpf_link__destroy(link);
+ }
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+#define THREAD_COUNT 4
+
+static void test_session_consumer_stress(void)
+{
+ struct uprobe_multi_consumer_stress *skel;
+ pthread_t threads[THREAD_COUNT];
+ time_t start;
+ int i, err;
+
+ /*
+ * We create multiple threads each trying to attach and detach uprobe
+ * consumer on the same uprobe, while main thread is hitting on that
+ * uprobe. All that for 5 seconds.
+ */
+ skel = uprobe_multi_consumer_stress__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "uprobe_multi_consumer_stress"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
+ err = pthread_create(threads + i, NULL, worker, skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "pthread_create"))
+ goto join;
+ }
+
+ start = time(NULL);
+
+ while (start + 5 > time(NULL))
+ uprobe_multi_func_1();
+
+ done = 1;
+
+join:
+ for (i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++)
+ pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
+
+cleanup:
+ uprobe_multi_consumer_stress__destroy(skel);
+}
+
void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
{
if (test__start_subtest("skel_api"))
@@ -872,5 +952,7 @@ void test_uprobe_multi_test(void)
test_session_cookie_skel_api();
if (test__start_subtest("session_cookie_recursive"))
test_session_recursive_skel_api();
+ if (test__start_subtest("consumer_stress"))
+ test_session_consumer_stress();
RUN_TESTS(uprobe_multi_verifier);
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5390108a21ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumer_stress.c
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("uprobe.session")
+int uprobe_session_0(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.session")
+int uprobe_session_1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.multi")
+int uprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("uprobe.multi")
+int uretprobe(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support
2024-09-17 8:50 [PATCHv4 00/14] uprobe, bpf: Add session support Jiri Olsa
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2024-09-17 8:50 ` [PATCHv4 14/14] selftests/bpf: Add consumers stress test on single uprobe Jiri Olsa
@ 2024-09-23 8:34 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
14 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2024-09-23 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Olsa
Cc: oleg, peterz, ast, daniel, andrii, bpf, kafai, songliubraving,
yhs, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, rostedt, mhiramat,
linux-kernel, linux-trace-kernel
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:50:10 +0200 you wrote:
> hi,
> this patchset is adding support for session uprobe attachment and
> using it through bpf link for bpf programs.
>
> The session means that the uprobe consumer is executed on entry
> and return of probed function with additional control:
> - entry callback can control execution of the return callback
> - entry and return callbacks can share data/cookie
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [PATCHv4,01/14] uprobe: Add data pointer to consumer handlers
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,03/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,04/14] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session context
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,05/14] bpf: Allow return values 0 and 1 for uprobe/kprobe session
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,06/14] libbpf: Fix uretprobe.multi.s programs auto attachment
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/8c8b47597403
- [PATCHv4,07/14] libbpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,08/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session test
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,09/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session cookie test
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,10/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session recursive test
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,11/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session verifier test for return value
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,12/14] selftests/bpf: Add kprobe session verifier test for return value
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,13/14] selftests/bpf: Add uprobe session single consumer test
(no matching commit)
- [PATCHv4,14/14] selftests/bpf: Add consumers stress test on single uprobe
(no matching commit)
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread