| Message ID | 20211123095104.54330-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] bpf: Remove config check to enable bpf support for branch records | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next | fail | VM_Test |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | fail | PR summary |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf | fail | VM_Test |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-PR | fail | PR summary |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply, async |
On 11/23/21 10:51 AM, Kajol Jain wrote: > Branch data available to bpf programs can be very useful to get > stack traces out of userspace application. > > Commit fff7b64355ea ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") > added bpf support to capture branch records in x86. Enable this feature > for other architectures as well by removing check specific to x86. > > Incase any architecture doesn't support branch records, > bpf_read_branch_records still have appropriate checks and it > will return error number -EINVAL in that scenario. But based on > documentation there in include/uapi/linux/bpf.h file, incase of > unsupported archs, this function should return -ENOENT. Hence update > the appropriate checks to return -ENOENT instead. > > Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which has branch stacks > support. > > Before this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:FAIL > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:FAIL > Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > After this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:OK > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:OK > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which doesn't > have branch stack report. > > After this patch changes: > [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches > #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:SKIP > #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK > #88 perf_branches:OK > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Fixes: fff7b64355eac ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com> > --- > > Tested this patch changes on power9 machine using selftest > 'perf branches' which is added in commit 67306f84ca78 ("selftests/bpf: > Add bpf_read_branch_records()") > > Changelog: > v2 -> v3 > - Change the return error number for bpf_read_branch_records > function from -EINVAL to -ENOENT for appropriate checks > as suggested by Daniel Borkmann. > > - Link to the v2 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/18/510 > > v1 -> v2 > - Inorder to add bpf support to capture branch record in > powerpc, rather then adding config for powerpc, entirely > remove config check from bpf_read_branch_records function > as suggested by Peter Zijlstra > > - Link to the v1 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/14/434 > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > index 7396488793ff..b94a00f92759 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > @@ -1402,18 +1402,15 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = { > BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, > void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags) > { > -#ifndef CONFIG_X86 > - return -ENOENT; > -#else > static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry); > struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack; > u32 to_copy; > > if (unlikely(flags & ~BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE)) > - return -EINVAL; > + return -ENOENT; What's the rationale for also changing the above? Invalid/unsupported flags should still return -EINVAL as they did before ... > if (unlikely(!br_stack)) > - return -EINVAL; > + return -ENOENT; ... meaning only this one here was necessary. > if (flags & BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE) > return br_stack->nr * br_entry_size; > @@ -1425,7 +1422,6 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, > memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy); > > return to_copy; > -#endif > } > > static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_read_branch_records_proto = { >
On 11/23/21 5:33 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 11/23/21 10:51 AM, Kajol Jain wrote: >> Branch data available to bpf programs can be very useful to get >> stack traces out of userspace application. >> >> Commit fff7b64355ea ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") >> added bpf support to capture branch records in x86. Enable this feature >> for other architectures as well by removing check specific to x86. >> >> Incase any architecture doesn't support branch records, >> bpf_read_branch_records still have appropriate checks and it >> will return error number -EINVAL in that scenario. But based on >> documentation there in include/uapi/linux/bpf.h file, incase of >> unsupported archs, this function should return -ENOENT. Hence update >> the appropriate checks to return -ENOENT instead. >> >> Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which has branch stacks >> support. >> >> Before this patch changes: >> [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches >> #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:FAIL >> #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK >> #88 perf_branches:FAIL >> Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED >> >> After this patch changes: >> [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches >> #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:OK >> #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK >> #88 perf_branches:OK >> Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >> >> Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which doesn't >> have branch stack report. >> >> After this patch changes: >> [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches >> #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:SKIP >> #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK >> #88 perf_branches:OK >> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >> >> Fixes: fff7b64355eac ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") >> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> >> Tested this patch changes on power9 machine using selftest >> 'perf branches' which is added in commit 67306f84ca78 ("selftests/bpf: >> Add bpf_read_branch_records()") >> >> Changelog: >> v2 -> v3 >> - Change the return error number for bpf_read_branch_records >> function from -EINVAL to -ENOENT for appropriate checks >> as suggested by Daniel Borkmann. >> >> - Link to the v2 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/18/510 >> >> v1 -> v2 >> - Inorder to add bpf support to capture branch record in >> powerpc, rather then adding config for powerpc, entirely >> remove config check from bpf_read_branch_records function >> as suggested by Peter Zijlstra >> >> - Link to the v1 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/14/434 >> >> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 8 ++------ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c >> index 7396488793ff..b94a00f92759 100644 >> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c >> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c >> @@ -1402,18 +1402,15 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto >> bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = { >> BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern >> *, ctx, >> void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags) >> { >> -#ifndef CONFIG_X86 >> - return -ENOENT; >> -#else >> static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry); >> struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack; >> u32 to_copy; >> if (unlikely(flags & ~BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE)) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + return -ENOENT; > > What's the rationale for also changing the above? Invalid/unsupported > flags should > still return -EINVAL as they did before ... Thanks for pointing it, I will make this change in the next version. Thanks, Kajol Jain > >> if (unlikely(!br_stack)) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + return -ENOENT; > > ... meaning only this one here was necessary. > >> if (flags & BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE) >> return br_stack->nr * br_entry_size; >> @@ -1425,7 +1422,6 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct >> bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, >> memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy); >> return to_copy; >> -#endif >> } >> static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_read_branch_records_proto = { >> >
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index 7396488793ff..b94a00f92759 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -1402,18 +1402,15 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = { BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, void *, buf, u32, size, u64, flags) { -#ifndef CONFIG_X86 - return -ENOENT; -#else static const u32 br_entry_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry); struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack; u32 to_copy; if (unlikely(flags & ~BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE)) - return -EINVAL; + return -ENOENT; if (unlikely(!br_stack)) - return -EINVAL; + return -ENOENT; if (flags & BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE) return br_stack->nr * br_entry_size; @@ -1425,7 +1422,6 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy); return to_copy; -#endif } static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_read_branch_records_proto = {
Branch data available to bpf programs can be very useful to get stack traces out of userspace application. Commit fff7b64355ea ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") added bpf support to capture branch records in x86. Enable this feature for other architectures as well by removing check specific to x86. Incase any architecture doesn't support branch records, bpf_read_branch_records still have appropriate checks and it will return error number -EINVAL in that scenario. But based on documentation there in include/uapi/linux/bpf.h file, incase of unsupported archs, this function should return -ENOENT. Hence update the appropriate checks to return -ENOENT instead. Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which has branch stacks support. Before this patch changes: [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:FAIL #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK #88 perf_branches:FAIL Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED After this patch changes: [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:OK #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK #88 perf_branches:OK Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Selftest 'perf_branches' result on power9 machine which doesn't have branch stack report. After this patch changes: [command]# ./test_progs -t perf_branches #88/1 perf_branches/perf_branches_hw:SKIP #88/2 perf_branches/perf_branches_no_hw:OK #88 perf_branches:OK Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Fixes: fff7b64355eac ("bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records() helper") Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com> --- Tested this patch changes on power9 machine using selftest 'perf branches' which is added in commit 67306f84ca78 ("selftests/bpf: Add bpf_read_branch_records()") Changelog: v2 -> v3 - Change the return error number for bpf_read_branch_records function from -EINVAL to -ENOENT for appropriate checks as suggested by Daniel Borkmann. - Link to the v2 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/18/510 v1 -> v2 - Inorder to add bpf support to capture branch record in powerpc, rather then adding config for powerpc, entirely remove config check from bpf_read_branch_records function as suggested by Peter Zijlstra - Link to the v1 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/14/434 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)