Re: [PATCH v2] tracing/uprobe: Add missing PID filter for uretprobe
From: Jiri Olsa <hidden>
Date: 2024-08-26 22:01:49
Also in:
bpf
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:25:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
This is offtopic, sorry for the spam, but... On 08/26, Jiri Olsa wrote:quoted
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:57:52PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:quoted
Does bpftrace use bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach/etc ? I guess not... Then which userspace tool uses this code? ;)yes, it will trigger if you attach to multiple uprobes, like with your test example with: # bpftrace -p xxx -e 'uprobe:./ex:func* { printf("%d\n", pid); }'Hmm. I reserved the testing machine with fedora 40 to play with bpftrace. dummy.c: #include <unistd.h> void func1(void) {} void func2(void) {} int main(void) { for (;;) pause(); } If I do # ./dummy & # bpftrace -p $! -e 'uprobe:./dummy:func* { printf("%d\n", pid); }' and run # bpftrace -e 'kprobe:__uprobe_register { printf("%s\n", kstack); }'
did you just bpftrace-ed bpftrace? ;-) on my setup I'm getting:
[root@qemu ex]# ../bpftrace/build/src/bpftrace -e 'kprobe:uprobe_register { printf("%s\n", kstack); }'
Attaching 1 probe...
uprobe_register+1
bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach+685
__sys_bpf+9395
__x64_sys_bpf+26
do_syscall_64+128
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+118
I'm not sure what's bpftrace version in fedora 40, I'm using upstream build:
[root@qemu ex]# ../bpftrace/build/src/bpftrace --info 2>&1 | grep uprobe_multi
uprobe_multi: yes
[root@qemu ex]# ../bpftrace/build/src/bpftrace --version
bpftrace v0.20.0
jirka
on another console I get
Attaching 1 probe...
__uprobe_register+1
probe_event_enable+399
perf_trace_event_init+440
perf_uprobe_init+152
perf_uprobe_event_init+74
perf_try_init_event+71
perf_event_alloc+1681
__do_sys_perf_event_open+447
do_syscall_64+130
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+118
__uprobe_register+1
probe_event_enable+399
perf_trace_event_init+440
perf_uprobe_init+152
perf_uprobe_event_init+74
perf_try_init_event+71
perf_event_alloc+1681
__do_sys_perf_event_open+447
do_syscall_64+130
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+118
so it seems that bpftrace doesn't use bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach()
(called by sys_bpf(BPF_LINK_CREATE) ?) in this case.
But again, this is offtopic, please forget.
Oleg.