Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: implement bpf_send_signal() helper

[Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>]

On 05/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 5/22/19 9:38 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 05/21, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >> This patch tries to solve the following specific use case.
> >>
> >> Currently, bpf program can already collect stack traces
> >> through kernel function get_perf_callchain()
> >> when certain events happens (e.g., cache miss counter or
> >> cpu clock counter overflows). But such stack traces are
> >> not enough for jitted programs, e.g., hhvm (jited php).
> >> To get real stack trace, jit engine internal data structures
> >> need to be traversed in order to get the real user functions.
> >>
> >> bpf program itself may not be the best place to traverse
> >> the jit engine as the traversing logic could be complex and
> >> it is not a stable interface either.
> >>
> >> Instead, hhvm implements a signal handler,
> >> e.g. for SIGALARM, and a set of program locations which
> >> it can dump stack traces. When it receives a signal, it will
> >> dump the stack in next such program location.
> >>
> > 
> > [..]
> >> This patch implements bpf_send_signal() helper to send
> >> a signal to hhvm in real time, resulting in intended stack traces.
> > Series looks good. One minor nit/question: maybe rename bpf_send_signal
> > to something like bpf_send_signal_to_current/bpf_current_send_signal/etc?
> > bpf_send_signal is too generic now that you send the signal
> > to the current process..
> 
> bpf_send_signal_to_current was Yonghong's original name
> and I asked him to rename it to bpf_send_signal :)
> I don't see bpf sending signals to arbitrary processes
> in the near future.
:) I was thinking that it might be a bit more clear if we communicate
target process in the name, but I don't feel strongly about it.

So it's not about the future. OTOH, who knows, I remember when people
said there would not be any locking/loops in bpf. And here we are :)