Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: introduce helper bpf_get_task_stak()
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2020-06-26 20:17:56
Also in:
bpf, lkml
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:14 PM Song Liu [off-list ref] wrote:
Introduce helper bpf_get_task_stack(), which dumps stack trace of given task. This is different to bpf_get_stack(), which gets stack track of current task. One potential use case of bpf_get_task_stack() is to call it from bpf_iter__task and dump all /proc/<pid>/stack to a seq_file. bpf_get_task_stack() uses stack_trace_save_tsk() instead of get_perf_callchain() for kernel stack. The benefit of this choice is that stack_trace_save_tsk() doesn't require changes in arch/. The downside of using stack_trace_save_tsk() is that stack_trace_save_tsk() dumps the stack trace to unsigned long array. For 32-bit systems, we need to translate it to u64 array. Signed-off-by: Song Liu <redacted> ---
Looks great, I just think that there are cases where user doesn't necessarily has valid task_struct pointer, just pid, so would be nice to not artificially restrict such cases by having extra helper. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <redacted>
include/linux/bpf.h | 1 + include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 35 ++++++++++++++- kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 + scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py | 2 + tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 35 ++++++++++++++- 6 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
[...]
+ /* stack_trace_save_tsk() works on unsigned long array, while
+ * perf_callchain_entry uses u64 array. For 32-bit systems, it is
+ * necessary to fix this mismatch.
+ */
+ if (__BITS_PER_LONG != 64) {
+ unsigned long *from = (unsigned long *) entry->ip;
+ u64 *to = entry->ip;
+ int i;
+
+ /* copy data from the end to avoid using extra buffer */
+ for (i = entry->nr - 1; i >= (int)init_nr; i--)
+ to[i] = (u64)(from[i]);doing this forward would be just fine as well, no? First iteration will cast and overwrite low 32-bits, all the subsequent iterations won't even overlap.
+ } + +exit_put: + put_callchain_entry(rctx); + + return entry; +} +
[...]
+BPF_CALL_4(bpf_get_task_stack, struct task_struct *, task, void *, buf,
+ u32, size, u64, flags)
+{
+ struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(task);
+
+ return __bpf_get_stack(regs, task, buf, size, flags);
+}So this takes advantage of BTF and having a direct task_struct pointer. But for kprobes/tracepoint I think it would also be extremely helpful to be able to request stack trace by PID. How about one more helper which will wrap this one with get/put task by PID, e.g., bpf_get_pid_stack(int pid, void *buf, u32 size, u64 flags)? Would that be a problem?
+
+static int bpf_get_task_stack_btf_ids[5];
+const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_task_stack_proto = {
+ .func = bpf_get_task_stack,
+ .gpl_only = false,
+ .ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
+ .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID,
+ .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM,
+ .arg3_type = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO,
+ .arg4_type = ARG_ANYTHING,
+ .btf_id = bpf_get_task_stack_btf_ids,
+};
+[...]