Re: [PATCHv5 perf/core 10/22] uprobes/x86: Add support to optimize uprobes

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 11:48:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:29:18AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > +enum {
> > +	OPT_PART,
> > +	OPT_INSN,
> > +	UNOPT_INT3,
> > +	UNOPT_PART,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct write_opcode_ctx {
> > +	unsigned long base;
> > +	int update;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int is_call_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn)
> > +{
> > +	return *insn == CALL_INSN_OPCODE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int verify_insn(struct page *page, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_t *new_opcode,
> > +		       int nbytes, void *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct write_opcode_ctx *ctx = data;
> > +	uprobe_opcode_t old_opcode[5];
> > +
> > +	uprobe_copy_from_page(page, ctx->base, (uprobe_opcode_t *) &old_opcode, 5);
> > +
> > +	switch (ctx->update) {
> > +	case OPT_PART:
> > +	case OPT_INSN:
> > +		if (is_swbp_insn(&old_opcode[0]))
> > +			return 1;
> > +		break;
> > +	case UNOPT_INT3:
> > +		if (is_call_insn(&old_opcode[0]))
> > +			return 1;
> > +		break;
> > +	case UNOPT_PART:
> > +		if (is_swbp_insn(&old_opcode[0]))
> > +			return 1;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return -1;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int write_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long vaddr,
> > +		      uprobe_opcode_t *insn, int nbytes, void *ctx)
> > +{
> > +	return uprobe_write(auprobe, vma, vaddr, insn, nbytes, verify_insn,
> > +			    true /* is_register */, false /* do_update_ref_ctr */, ctx);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void relative_call(void *dest, long from, long to)
> > +{
> > +	struct __packed __arch_relative_insn {
> > +		u8 op;
> > +		s32 raddr;
> > +	} *insn;
> > +
> > +	insn = (struct __arch_relative_insn *)dest;
> > +	insn->raddr = (s32)(to - (from + 5));
> > +	insn->op = CALL_INSN_OPCODE;
> > +}
> 
> We already have this in asm/text-patching.h, its called
> __text_gen_insn().
> 
> > +
> > +static int swbp_optimize(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +			 unsigned long vaddr, unsigned long tramp)
> > +{
> > +	struct write_opcode_ctx ctx = {
> > +		.base = vaddr,
> > +	};
> > +	char call[5];
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	relative_call(call, vaddr, tramp);
> 
> 	__text_gen_insn(call, CALL_INSN_OPCODE, vaddr, tramp, CALL_INSN_SIZE);

ok, will use that

> 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We are in state where breakpoint (int3) is installed on top of first
> > +	 * byte of the nop5 instruction. We will do following steps to overwrite
> > +	 * this to call instruction:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * - sync cores
> > +	 * - write last 4 bytes of the call instruction
> > +	 * - sync cores
> > +	 * - update the call instruction opcode
> 
> The sanctioned text poke sequence has another sync-core at the end.
> Please also do this.

ok

> 
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	smp_text_poke_sync_each_cpu();
> > +
> > +	ctx.update = OPT_PART;
> > +	err = write_insn(auprobe, vma, vaddr + 1, call + 1, 4, &ctx);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	smp_text_poke_sync_each_cpu();
> > +
> > +	ctx.update = OPT_INSN;
> > +	return write_insn(auprobe, vma, vaddr, call, 1, &ctx);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int swbp_unoptimize(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +			   unsigned long vaddr)
> > +{
> > +	uprobe_opcode_t int3 = UPROBE_SWBP_INSN;
> > +	struct write_opcode_ctx ctx = {
> > +		.base = vaddr,
> > +	};
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We need to overwrite call instruction into nop5 instruction with
> > +	 * breakpoint (int3) installed on top of its first byte. We will:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * - overwrite call opcode with breakpoint (int3)
> > +	 * - sync cores
> > +	 * - write last 4 bytes of the nop5 instruction
> > +	 * - sync cores
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	ctx.update = UNOPT_INT3;
> > +	err = write_insn(auprobe, vma, vaddr, &int3, 1, &ctx);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	smp_text_poke_sync_each_cpu();
> > +
> > +	ctx.update = UNOPT_PART;
> > +	err = write_insn(auprobe, vma, vaddr + 1, (uprobe_opcode_t *) auprobe->insn + 1, 4, &ctx);
> > +
> > +	smp_text_poke_sync_each_cpu();
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> 
> Please unify these two functions; it makes absolutely no sense to have
> two copies of this logic around.

will try to come up with something

thanks,
jirka