Re: [PATCH RFCv2 08/18] uprobes/x86: Add uprobe syscall to speed up uprobe

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 6:08 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(uprobe)
> +{
> +       struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> +       unsigned long bp_vaddr;
> +       int err;
> +
> +       err = copy_from_user(&bp_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp + 3*8, sizeof(bp_vaddr));
> +       if (err) {
> +               force_sig(SIGILL);
> +               return -1;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Allow execution only from uprobe trampolines. */
> +       if (!in_uprobe_trampoline(regs->ip)) {
> +               force_sig(SIGILL);
> +               return -1;
> +       }
> +
> +       handle_syscall_uprobe(regs, bp_vaddr - 5);
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +asm (
> +       ".pushsection .rodata\n"
> +       ".balign " __stringify(PAGE_SIZE) "\n"
> +       "uprobe_trampoline_entry:\n"
> +       "endbr64\n"

why endbr is there?
The trampoline is called with a direct call.

> +       "push %rcx\n"
> +       "push %r11\n"
> +       "push %rax\n"
> +       "movq $" __stringify(__NR_uprobe) ", %rax\n"

To avoid introducing a new syscall for a very similar operation
can we disambiguate uprobe vs uretprobe via %rdi or
some other way?
imo not too late to change uretprobe api.
Maybe it was discussed already.

> +       "syscall\n"
> +       "pop %rax\n"
> +       "pop %r11\n"
> +       "pop %rcx\n"
> +       "ret\n"

In later patches I see nop5 is replaced with a call to
uprobe_trampoline_entry, but which part saves
rdi and other regs?
Compiler doesn't automatically spill/fill around USDT's nop/nop5.
Selftest is doing:
+__naked noinline void uprobe_test(void)
so just lucky ?