From patchwork Mon Dec 6 07:33:15 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: kajoljain X-Patchwork-Id: 12657717 X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0A3C433F5 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235534AbhLFHhd (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 02:37:33 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:4852 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229652AbhLFHhc (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 02:37:32 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B67HUr0025383; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:43 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=HkMSZMMkGG7qs/M6ldHGjZwCT5FBRbh/Mu0JItmT4HU=; b=fuY7zAZS3YT9yFCz/+QlCqrR1JL3u1EAw0y1XAEG4kBfJew0D8VGyLXYLplIZT7e7/90 3kbwcSaRvsjtOertzdaDPg4qlG7zsfC1iggg1ZkkKR6K+WC3ckDgvu1d0sunbtKC6Nsf j0iQ2Dy6NelyxkdgKYBOxiHmlSAIiCDuKrD/R+2Z6UEqrJGNfnrsguhDePT0nszWzWDr Yn0eA/yrIPu8IEN9D6FOsf5pvd4AP5av5Qw40iCvAHSXczLPi8+2SimoKrVNjqr3Qki7 4fXk/x6hKsXru3Gz3AIZ2KBfujp413qm4oZpZiTxmD5qrWvsn/5V8o4YSR6Zw946MvDq eQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cse0j07wj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:33:43 +0000 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1B67M9SL008384; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:42 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3cse0j07vj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:33:42 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B67WbHH018385; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:40 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cqykhsc2y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 07:33:40 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1B67XaOP29360562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:36 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E784C04E; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24F14C058; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e8dccbcc-2adc-11b2-a85c-bc1f33b9b810.ibm.com.com (unknown [9.43.39.249]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 07:33:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Kajol Jain To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: acme@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, songliubraving@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, kpsingh@kernel.org, hawk@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com, atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, rnsastry@linux.ibm.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com, andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com Subject: [PATCH v4] bpf: Remove config check to enable bpf support for branch records Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:03:15 +0530 Message-Id: <20211206073315.77432-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.27.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: ddqZnyNPzA3d_H6YK0T9qAXKQhnrCgL5 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 5VHbnfruROeutJ8Bs9NzMU1-zunweXEV X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-06_02,2021-12-06_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112060045 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net 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 Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain --- 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: v3 -> v4 - Make return type again as -EINVAL for invalid/unsupported flags case as suggested by Daniel Borkmann. - Link to the v3 patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/11/23/248 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 | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index ae9755037b7e..e36d184615fb 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -1400,9 +1400,6 @@ 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; @@ -1411,7 +1408,7 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_read_branch_records, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx, return -EINVAL; if (unlikely(!br_stack)) - return -EINVAL; + return -ENOENT; if (flags & BPF_F_GET_BRANCH_RECORDS_SIZE) return br_stack->nr * br_entry_size; @@ -1423,7 +1420,6 @@ 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 = {