From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] samples/bpf: fix kprobe attachment issue on x64 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:06:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20180430000622.p4flh2hyd2pydlz4@ast-mbp> References: <20180429220631.2925150-1-yhs@fb.com> <20180429232031.5p2y4s274inymf4b@ast-mbp> <4524f1c3-a63c-1fb1-ee53-94350e0dc280@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ast@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com To: Yonghong Song Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:41522 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754381AbeD3AG3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:06:29 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id v63so5400708pfk.8 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4524f1c3-a63c-1fb1-ee53-94350e0dc280@fb.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 05:00:23PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 4/29/18 4:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 03:06:31PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > Commit d5a00528b58c ("syscalls/core, syscalls/x86: Rename > > > struct pt_regs-based sys_*() to __x64_sys_*()") renamed a lot > > > of syscall function sys_*() to __x64_sys_*(). > > > This caused several kprobe based samples/bpf tests failing. > > > > > > This patch fixed the problem by using __x64_sys_*(), > > > instead of sys_*(), in bpf program SEC annotations if > > > the target arch is __TARGET_ARCH_x86. > > > > > > Fixes: d5a00528b58c ("syscalls/core, syscalls/x86: Rename struct pt_regs-based sys_*() to __x64_sys_*()") > > > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song > > > --- > > > samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > samples/bpf/test_current_task_under_cgroup_kern.c | 4 +++ > > > samples/bpf/test_map_in_map_kern.c | 4 +++ > > > samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user_kern.c | 4 +++ > > > samples/bpf/trace_output_kern.c | 4 +++ > > > samples/bpf/tracex2_kern.c | 4 +++ > > > 6 files changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c > > > index 2b2ffb9..79f4320 100644 > > > --- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c > > > +++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c > > > @@ -95,7 +95,11 @@ struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") lru_hash_lookup_map = { > > > .max_entries = MAX_ENTRIES, > > > }; > > > +#ifdef __TARGET_ARCH_x86 > > > +SEC("kprobe/__x64_sys_getuid") > > > +#else > > > SEC("kprobe/sys_getuid") > > > +#endif > > > > I think it would be better to hack bpf_load.c to add __x64_ > > automatically when it matches "sys_" in the beginning of kprobe name. > > I thought this before but there a few outliers for the particular > kernel configuration I have for latest bpf-next: > > drivers/video/fbdev/core/sysfillrect.c: > void sys_fillrect(struct fb_info *p, const struct fb_fillrect *rect) > drivers/video/fbdev/core/syscopyarea.c: > void sys_copyarea(struct fb_info *p, const struct fb_copyarea *area) > drivers/video/fbdev/core/sysimgblt.c: > void sys_imageblit(struct fb_info *p, const struct fb_image *image) > > I am not sure whether any other outliers for other configurations or > in the future somebody could introduces a kernel function sys_ but > not a syscall. How about trying to kprobe both ? First __x64_sys_* and if it doesn't exist kprobe on sys_* ?