Re: [PATCH 1/8] bpf: Add support to attach kprobe program with fprobe

[Jiri Olsa]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:59:14AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:53 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Adding new link type BPF_LINK_TYPE_FPROBE that attaches kprobe program
> > through fprobe API.
> >
> > The fprobe API allows to attach probe on multiple functions at once very
> > fast, because it works on top of ftrace. On the other hand this limits
> > the probe point to the function entry or return.
> >
> > The kprobe program gets the same pt_regs input ctx as when it's attached
> > through the perf API.
> >
> > Adding new attach type BPF_TRACE_FPROBE that enables such link for kprobe
> > program.
> >
> > User provides array of addresses or symbols with count to attach the kprobe
> > program to. The new link_create uapi interface looks like:
> >
> >   struct {
> >           __aligned_u64   syms;
> >           __aligned_u64   addrs;
> >           __u32           cnt;
> >           __u32           flags;
> >   } fprobe;
> >
> > The flags field allows single BPF_F_FPROBE_RETURN bit to create return fprobe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/bpf_types.h      |   1 +
> >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  13 ++
> >  kernel/bpf/syscall.c           | 248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  13 ++
> >  4 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FPROBE
> > +
> > +struct bpf_fprobe_link {
> > +       struct bpf_link link;
> > +       struct fprobe fp;
> > +       unsigned long *addrs;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void bpf_fprobe_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> > +
> > +       fprobe_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_fprobe_link, link);
> > +       unregister_fprobe(&fprobe_link->fp);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void bpf_fprobe_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> > +
> > +       fprobe_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_fprobe_link, link);
> > +       kfree(fprobe_link->addrs);
> > +       kfree(fprobe_link);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_fprobe_link_lops = {
> > +       .release = bpf_fprobe_link_release,
> > +       .dealloc = bpf_fprobe_link_dealloc,
> > +};
> > +
> 
> should this whole new link implementation (including
> fprobe_link_prog_run() below) maybe live in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c?
> Seems a bit more fitting than kernel/bpf/syscall.c

right, it's trace related

> 
> > +static int fprobe_link_prog_run(struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link,
> > +                               struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +       if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
> > +               err = 0;
> > +               goto out;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > +       migrate_disable();
> > +       err = bpf_prog_run(fprobe_link->link.prog, regs);
> > +       migrate_enable();
> > +       rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + out:
> > +       __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> > +       return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void fprobe_link_entry_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip,
> > +                                     struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
> > +       struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Because fprobe's regs->ip is set to the next instruction of
> > +        * dynamic-ftrace insturction, correct entry ip must be set, so
> > +        * that the bpf program can access entry address via regs as same
> > +        * as kprobes.
> > +        */
> > +       instruction_pointer_set(regs, entry_ip);
> > +
> > +       fprobe_link = container_of(fp, struct bpf_fprobe_link, fp);
> > +       fprobe_link_prog_run(fprobe_link, regs);
> > +
> > +       instruction_pointer_set(regs, saved_ip);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void fprobe_link_exit_handler(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip,
> > +                                    struct pt_regs *regs)
> 
> isn't it identical to fprobe_lnk_entry_handler? Maybe use one callback
> for both entry and exit?

heh, did not notice that :) yep, looks that way, will check

> 
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
> > +       struct bpf_fprobe_link *fprobe_link;
> > +
> > +       instruction_pointer_set(regs, entry_ip);
> > +
> > +       fprobe_link = container_of(fp, struct bpf_fprobe_link, fp);
> > +       fprobe_link_prog_run(fprobe_link, regs);
> > +
> > +       instruction_pointer_set(regs, saved_ip);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int fprobe_resolve_syms(const void *usyms, u32 cnt,
> > +                              unsigned long *addrs)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long addr, size;
> > +       const char **syms;
> > +       int err = -ENOMEM;
> > +       unsigned int i;
> > +       char *func;
> > +
> > +       size = cnt * sizeof(*syms);
> > +       syms = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> any reason not to use kvzalloc() here?

probably just my ignorance ;-) will check

> 
> > +       if (!syms)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +static int bpf_fprobe_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_fprobe_link *link = NULL;
> > +       struct bpf_link_primer link_primer;
> > +       unsigned long *addrs;
> > +       u32 flags, cnt, size;
> > +       void __user *uaddrs;
> > +       void __user *usyms;
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +       /* no support for 32bit archs yet */
> > +       if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> 
> -EOPNOTSUPP?

ok

> 
> > +
> > +       if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_FPROBE)
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       flags = attr->link_create.fprobe.flags;
> > +       if (flags & ~BPF_F_FPROBE_RETURN)
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       uaddrs = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->link_create.fprobe.addrs);
> > +       usyms = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->link_create.fprobe.syms);
> > +       if ((!uaddrs && !usyms) || (uaddrs && usyms))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> 
> !!uaddrs == !!usyms ?

ah right, will change

> 
> > +
> > +       cnt = attr->link_create.fprobe.cnt;
> > +       if (!cnt)
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       size = cnt * sizeof(*addrs);
> > +       addrs = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> same, why not kvzalloc? Also, aren't you overwriting each addrs entry
> anyway, so "z" is not necessary, right?

true, no need for zeroing

thanks,
jirka