Re: [PATCH 2/8] bpf: Add bpf_get_func_ip kprobe helper for fprobe link

Jiri Olsa
2022-02-09T15:01:57Z

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:59:18AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:53 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Adding support to call get_func_ip_fprobe helper from kprobe
> > programs attached by fprobe link.
> >
> > Also adding support to inline it, because it's single load
> > instruction.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 1ae41d0cf96c..a745ded00635 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -13625,7 +13625,7 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > - /* Implement bpf_get_func_ip inline. */
> > + /* Implement tracing bpf_get_func_ip inline. */
> > if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING &&
> > insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_func_ip) {
> > /* Load IP address from ctx - 16 */
> > @@ -13640,6 +13640,23 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > + /* Implement kprobe/fprobe bpf_get_func_ip inline. */
> > + if (prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE &&
> > + eatype == BPF_TRACE_FPROBE &&
> > + insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_func_ip) {
> > + /* Load IP address from ctx (struct pt_regs) ip */
> > + insn_buf[0] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
> > + offsetof(struct pt_regs, ip));
>
> Isn't this architecture-specific? I'm starting to dislike this

ugh, it is.. I'm not sure we want #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in here,
or some arch_* specific function?

jirka

> inlining whole more and more. It's just a complication in verifier
> without clear real-world benefits. We are clearly prematurely
> optimizing here. In practice you'll just call bpf_get_func_ip() once
> and that's it. Function call overhead will be negligible compare to
> other *userful* work you'll be doing in your BPF program.
>
>
> > +
> > + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, 1);
> > + if (!new_prog)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + env->prog = prog = new_prog;
> > + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > patch_call_imm:
> > fn = env->ops->get_func_proto(insn->imm, env->prog);
> > /* all functions that have prototype and verifier allowed
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index a2024ba32a20..28e59e31e3db 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -1036,6 +1036,19 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_func_ip_proto_kprobe = {
> > .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
> > };
> >
> > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_func_ip_fprobe, struct pt_regs *, regs)
> > +{
> > + /* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
> > + return regs->ip;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_func_ip_proto_fprobe = {
> > + .func = bpf_get_func_ip_fprobe,
> > + .gpl_only = false,
> > + .ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
> > + .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
> > +};
> > +
> > BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_attach_cookie_trace, void *, ctx)
> > {
> > struct bpf_trace_run_ctx *run_ctx;
> > @@ -1279,7 +1292,8 @@ kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > return &bpf_override_return_proto;
> > #endif
> > case BPF_FUNC_get_func_ip:
> > - return &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_kprobe;
> > + return prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FPROBE ?
> > + &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_fprobe : &bpf_get_func_ip_proto_kprobe;
> > case BPF_FUNC_get_attach_cookie:
> > return &bpf_get_attach_cookie_proto_trace;
> > default:
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >