diff mbox series

[RESEND,v5,3/4] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress all sample side effects

Message ID 20240214173950.18570-4-khuey@kylehuey.com
State New
Headers
Series Combine perf and bpf for fast eval of hw breakpoint conditions] |

Commit Message

Kyle Huey Feb. 14, 2024, 5:39 p.m. UTC 
  Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
suppresses any data output. Return early from __perf_event_overflow() in
this case so it will also suppress event_limit accounting, SIGTRAP
generation, and F_ASYNC signalling.

Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/events/core.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Feb. 16, 2024, 12:13 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:40 AM Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote:
>
> Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> suppresses any data output. Return early from __perf_event_overflow() in
> this case so it will also suppress event_limit accounting, SIGTRAP
> generation, and F_ASYNC signalling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/events/core.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 24a718e7eb98..a329bec42c4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -9574,6 +9574,11 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
>
>         ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> +       if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> +               return ret;
> +#endif
> +
>         /*
>          * XXX event_limit might not quite work as expected on inherited
>          * events
> @@ -9623,10 +9628,7 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
>                 irq_work_queue(&event->pending_irq);
>         }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> -       if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
> -#endif
> -               READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> +       READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
>

Sorry, I haven't followed previous discussions, but why can't this
change be done as part of patch 1?

>         if (*perf_event_fasync(event) && event->pending_kill) {
>                 event->pending_wakeup = 1;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Kyle Huey Feb. 16, 2024, 1:59 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:14 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:40 AM Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote:
> >
> > Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> > suppresses any data output. Return early from __perf_event_overflow() in
> > this case so it will also suppress event_limit accounting, SIGTRAP
> > generation, and F_ASYNC signalling.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/events/core.c | 10 ++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index 24a718e7eb98..a329bec42c4d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -9574,6 +9574,11 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> >
> >         ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > +       if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
> > +               return ret;
> > +#endif
> > +
> >         /*
> >          * XXX event_limit might not quite work as expected on inherited
> >          * events
> > @@ -9623,10 +9628,7 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
> >                 irq_work_queue(&event->pending_irq);
> >         }
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > -       if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
> > -#endif
> > -               READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> > +       READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
> >
>
> Sorry, I haven't followed previous discussions, but why can't this
> change be done as part of patch 1?

The idea was to refactor the code without making any behavior changes
(patches 1 and 2) and then to change the behavior (patch 3).

- Kyle

> >         if (*perf_event_fasync(event) && event->pending_kill) {
> >                 event->pending_wakeup = 1;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 24a718e7eb98..a329bec42c4d 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -9574,6 +9574,11 @@  static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
 
 	ret = __perf_event_account_interrupt(event, throttle);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
+	if (event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs))
+		return ret;
+#endif
+
 	/*
 	 * XXX event_limit might not quite work as expected on inherited
 	 * events
@@ -9623,10 +9628,7 @@  static int __perf_event_overflow(struct perf_event *event,
 		irq_work_queue(&event->pending_irq);
 	}
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
-	if (!(event->prog && !bpf_overflow_handler(event, data, regs)))
-#endif
-		READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
+	READ_ONCE(event->overflow_handler)(event, data, regs);
 
 	if (*perf_event_fasync(event) && event->pending_kill) {
 		event->pending_wakeup = 1;