Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] libbpf: Auto-upgrade kprobes to multi-kprobes when supported

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 04:30:19PM +0530, Varun R Mallya wrote:
> This patch modifies libbpf to automatically upgrade standard
> SEC("kprobe") and SEC("kretprobe") programs to use the multi-kprobe
> infrastructure (BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI) at load time if the kernel
> supports it, making them compatible with BPF tokens.
> 
> To maintain backward compatibility and handle cases where singular
> kprobes are required, new SEC("kprobe.single") and SEC("kretprobe.single")
> section types are introduced. These force libbpf to use the legacy
> perf_event_open() attachment path.
> 
> The following explain the reasoning for changing selftests:
> - test_fill_link_info.c kprobe→kprobe.single:
>   this test calls bpf_link_get_info_by_fd and asserts
>   BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT and it explicitly needs the perf_event
>   attachment path, which breaks after auto-upgrade to multi.
> 
> - test_attach_probe_manual.c kprobe→kprobe.single,
>   kretprobe→kretprobe.single:
>   this test exercises all four explicit attachment modes
>   (default, legacy, perf, link) and PROBE_ATTACH_MODE_LINK
>   creates a perf_event BPF link which the kernel rejects
>   for a prog loaded with expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI.
> 
> - missed_kprobe.c kprobe->kprobe.single:
>   The link is explicitly checked in the tests due to which it fails if
>   we do not specifically kprobe.single this.
> 
> - get_func_ip_test.c ?kprobe→?kprobe.single: the ? is stripped from
>   sec_name by libbpf at init time so the prog still gets auto-upgraded.
>   It is then manually attached with a non-zero body offset,
>   which kprobe_multi doesn't support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Varun R Mallya <varunrmallya@gmail.com>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c                        | 61 +++++++++++++++++--
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c    |  2 +-
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/missed_kprobe.c       |  4 +-
>  .../bpf/progs/test_attach_probe_manual.c      |  4 +-
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_fill_link_info.c |  2 +-
>  5 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index bd7b6f486430..9d0a36f8279a 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -8265,6 +8265,24 @@ static int bpf_object_prepare_progs(struct bpf_object *obj)
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> +		if (kernel_supports(obj, FEAT_KPROBE_MULTI_LINK)) {
> +			const char *sec_name = prog->sec_name;
> +			/* Here, we filter out for k[ret]probe or "k[ret]probe/"
> +			 * but we leave out anything with an '@'
> +			 * in it as kprobe_multi does not support versioned
> +			 * symbols, so we don't upgrade. Also for '+' as we do not

hum, kprobe versioned symbols?

> +			 * support offsets.
> +			 */
> +			if (((strncmp(sec_name, "kprobe", 6) == 0 &&

str_has_pfx ?

> +			      (sec_name[6] == '/' || sec_name[6] == '\0')) ||
> +			     (strncmp(sec_name, "kretprobe", 9) == 0 &&
> +			      (sec_name[9] == '/' || sec_name[9] == '\0'))) &&
> +			    !strchr(sec_name, '@') &&
> +			    !strchr(sec_name, '+') &&
> +			    !(prog->prog_flags & BPF_F_SLEEPABLE))

is this check necessary?

> +				prog->expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI;
> +		}
> +

maybe add the upgrade logic into separate function, like

   static int upgrade_program(struct bpf_program *prog)


>  		err = bpf_object__sanitize_prog(obj, prog);
>  		if (err)
>  			return err;
> @@ -9924,10 +9942,12 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
>  	SEC_DEF("sk_reuseport/migrate",	SK_REUSEPORT, BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_SELECT_OR_MIGRATE, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
>  	SEC_DEF("sk_reuseport",		SK_REUSEPORT, BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_SELECT, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
>  	SEC_DEF("kprobe+",		KPROBE,	0, SEC_NONE, attach_kprobe),
> +	SEC_DEF("kprobe.single+",	KPROBE,	0, SEC_NONE, attach_kprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uprobe+",		KPROBE,	0, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uprobe.s+",		KPROBE,	0, SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_uprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uprobe.single+",	KPROBE,	0, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("kretprobe+",		KPROBE, 0, SEC_NONE, attach_kprobe),
> +	SEC_DEF("kretprobe.single+",	KPROBE, 0, SEC_NONE, attach_kprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uretprobe+",		KPROBE, 0, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uretprobe.s+",		KPROBE, 0, SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_uprobe),
>  	SEC_DEF("uretprobe.single+",	KPROBE,	0, SEC_NONE, attach_uprobe),
> @@ -11769,6 +11789,25 @@ bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts(const struct bpf_program *prog,
>  	offset = OPTS_GET(opts, offset, 0);
>  	pe_opts.bpf_cookie = OPTS_GET(opts, bpf_cookie, 0);
>  
> +	/* This provides backwards compatibility to programs using kprobe, but
> +	 * have been auto-upgraded to multi kprobe.
> +	 */
> +	if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI &&
> +	    offset == 0 && attach_mode == PROBE_ATTACH_MODE_DEFAULT) {
> +		LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_multi_opts, multi_opts);
> +		const char *syms[1] = { func_name };
> +		__u64 bpf_cookie;
> +
> +		multi_opts.retprobe = OPTS_GET(opts, retprobe, false);
> +		multi_opts.syms = syms;

could we do directly:

		multi_opts.syms = &func_name;

jirka

> +		multi_opts.cnt = 1;
> +		bpf_cookie = OPTS_GET(opts, bpf_cookie, 0);
> +		if (bpf_cookie)
> +			multi_opts.cookies = &bpf_cookie;
> +
> +		return bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts(prog, NULL, &multi_opts);
> +	}
> +
>  	legacy = determine_kprobe_perf_type() < 0;
>  	switch (attach_mode) {
>  	case PROBE_ATTACH_MODE_LEGACY:
> @@ -12223,14 +12262,24 @@ static int attach_kprobe(const struct bpf_program *prog, long cookie, struct bpf
>  	*link = NULL;
>  

SNIP