[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: block bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on perf_event with PEBS entries

> On Jul 11, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:28 PM Song Liu <> wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:30 PM Song Liu <> wrote:
>>>> Calling get_perf_callchain() on perf_events from PEBS entries may cause
>>>> unwinder errors. To fix this issue, the callchain is fetched early. Such
>>>> perf_events are marked with __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY.
>>>> Similarly, calling bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on perf_events from PEBS may
>>>> also cause unwinder errors. To fix this, block bpf_get_[stack|stackid] on
>>>> these perf_events. Unfortunately, bpf verifier cannot tell whether the
>>>> program will be attached to perf_event with PEBS entries. Therefore,
>>>> block such programs during ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_BPF).
>>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <>
>>>> ---
>>> Perhaps it's a stupid question, but why bpf_get_stack/bpf_get_stackid
>>> can't figure out automatically that they are called from
>>> __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY perf event and use different callchain,
>>> if necessary?
>>> It is quite suboptimal from a user experience point of view to require
>>> two different BPF helpers depending on PEBS or non-PEBS perf events.
>> I am not aware of an easy way to tell the difference in bpf_get_stack.
>> But I do agree that would be much better.
> Hm... Looking a bit more how all this is tied together in the kernel,
> I think it's actually quite easy. So, for perf_event BPF program type:
> 1. return a special prototype for bpf_get_stack/bpf_get_stackid, which
> will have this extra bit of logic for callchain. All other program
> types with access to bpf_get_stack/bpf_get_stackid should use the
> current one, probably.
> 2. For that special program, just like for bpf_read_branch_records(),
> we know that context is actually `struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *`,
> and it has pt_regs, perf_sample_data and perf_event itself.
> 3. With that, it seems like you'll have everything you need to
> automatically choose a proper callchain.
> All this absolutely transparently to the BPF program.
> Am I missing something?

Good idea! A separate prototype should work here.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-12 08:37    [W:0.063 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site