Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 1/3] bpf: report probe fault to BPF stderr

On 2025/10/7 14:14, Menglong Dong wrote:

On 2025/10/2 10:03, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 11:12 PM Menglong Dong [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Introduce the function bpf_prog_report_probe_violation(), which is used
to report the memory probe fault to the user by the BPF stderr.

Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <redacted>

[...]

quoted

Interesting idea, but the above message is not helpful.
Users cannot decipher a fault_ip within a bpf prog.
It's just a random number.

Yeah, I have noticed this too. What useful is the
bpf_stream_dump_stack(), which will print the code
line that trigger the fault.

quoted

But stepping back... just faults are common in tracing.
If we start printing them we will just fill the stream to the max,
but users won't know that the message is there, since no one

You are right, we definitely can't output this message
to STDERR directly. We can add an extra flag for it, as you
said below.

Or, maybe we can introduce a enum stream_type, and
the users can subscribe what kind of messages they
want to receive.

quoted

expects it. arena and lock errors are rare and arena faults
were specifically requested by folks who develop progs that use arena.
This one is different. These faults have been around for a long time
and I don't recall people asking for more verbosity.
We can add them with an extra flag specified at prog load time,
but even then. Doesn't feel that useful.

Generally speaking, users can do invalid checking before
they do the memory reading, such as NULL checking. And
the pointer in function arguments that we hook is initialized
in most case. So the fault is someting that can be prevented.

I have a BPF tools which is writed for 4.X kernel and kprobe
based BPF is used. Now I'm planing to migrate it to 6.X kernel
and replace bpf_probe_read_kernel() with bpf_core_cast() to
obtain better performance. Then I find that I can't check if the
memory reading is success, which can lead to potential risk.
So my tool will be happy to get such fault event :)

Leon suggested to add a global errno for each BPF programs,
and I haven't dig deeply on this idea yet.

Yeah, as we discussed, a global errno would be a much more lightweight
approach for handling such faults.

The idea would look like this:

DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_errno);

__bpf_kfunc void bpf_errno_clear(void);
__bpf_kfunc void bpf_errno_set(int errno);
__bpf_kfunc int bpf_errno_get(void);

When a fault occurs, the kernel can simply call
'bpf_errno_set(-EFAULT);'.

If users want to detect whether a fault happened, they can do:

bpf_errno_clear();
header = READ_ONCE(skb->network_header);
if (header == 0 && bpf_errno_get() == -EFAULT)
        /* handle fault */;

This way, users can identify faults immediately and handle them gracefully.

Furthermore, these kfuncs can be inlined by the verifier, so there would
be no runtime function call overhead.

Thanks,
Leon