lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Multiple kprobes at an address
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some instrumentation tools on Linux, like Itrace and systemtap
> (http://sourceware.org/systemtap) now use the kprobe infrastructure to
> gather information. One of the requirements of projects like systemtap
> is the ability to define multiple kprobes at a given address.
>
> To this end, here is a patch that provides the feature. Patch is
> against linux-2.6.12-rc2.
>
> This patch provides the facility to register multiple kprobes at the
> same address using the existing interfaces. The house-keeping in
> case of multiple kprobes is taken care of within the base kprobes
> infrastructure.
>
> Another approach considered was to have a layer above the existing
> kprobes base (no modification to current kprobes base at all). A patch
> to this end is available at:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2005-q2/msg00089.html
>
> This approach would also allow for two sets of interfaces for
> un/registering kprobes. There has been quite a few discussions on the
> systemtap lists whether two interfaces are necessary or not. But, with
> the current kprobes locking model, the layered approach leaves room
> for a few kprobe registration races.

Maybe a low-level __register_kprobe() that expects to be called
under the kprobes_lock would do the trick ? That could also help
smoothen the remaining rough edges in the register/unregister paths.

>
> Both approaches are architecture agnostic.
>
> Other kprobe enhancements in the pipeline, such as, improving kprobe
> locking, support for return address probes, etc. Given that, the main
> questions to be answered now for the multi-kprobe feature are:
>
> 1. Is the approach taken by the patch attached good?
> 2. Do we take the layered approach?
> 3. If we take the layered approach, do we need multiple interfaces?

I think the criteria would depend on whether you can avoid policy
creep down the line, e.g. ordering/priorities amongst multiple kprobe
handlers, conditionally bypassing handlers in the chain, etc. I'm
not sure if the requirements for these tools are fully clear as yet,
some of the users intended for multi-kprobes are probably still on
the drawing board ? So I guess you can cross that bridge when you
come to it.

Regards
Suparna

> 4. Would existing users be impacted by the change?
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Ananth
>

> diff -Naurp temp/linux-2.6.12-rc2/include/linux/kprobes.h linux-2.6.12-rc2/include/linux/kprobes.h
> --- temp/linux-2.6.12-rc2/include/linux/kprobes.h 2005-04-18 11:44:57.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.12-rc2/include/linux/kprobes.h 2005-04-18 13:36:23.000000000 -0400
> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ typedef int (*kprobe_fault_handler_t) (s
> struct kprobe {
> struct hlist_node hlist;
>
> + /* list of kprobes for multi-handler support */
> + struct list_head list;
> +
> /* location of the probe point */
> kprobe_opcode_t *addr;
>
> diff -Naurp temp/linux-2.6.12-rc2/kernel/kprobes.c linux-2.6.12-rc2/kernel/kprobes.c
> --- temp/linux-2.6.12-rc2/kernel/kprobes.c 2005-04-18 11:44:57.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.12-rc2/kernel/kprobes.c 2005-04-18 13:41:38.000000000 -0400
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ static struct hlist_head kprobe_table[KP
>
> unsigned int kprobe_cpu = NR_CPUS;
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kprobe_lock);
> +static struct kprobe *curr_kprobe;
>
> /* Locks kprobe: irqs must be disabled */
> void lock_kprobes(void)
> @@ -73,22 +74,142 @@ struct kprobe *get_kprobe(void *addr)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Aggregate handlers for multiple kprobes support - these handlers
> + * take care of invoking the individual kprobe handlers on p->list
> + */
> +int aggr_pre_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + struct kprobe *kp;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(kp, &p->list, list) {
> + if (kp->pre_handler) {
> + curr_kprobe = kp;
> + kp->pre_handler(kp, regs);
> + curr_kprobe = NULL;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void aggr_post_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs,
> + unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + struct kprobe *kp;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(kp, &p->list, list) {
> + if (kp->post_handler) {
> + curr_kprobe = kp;
> + kp->post_handler(kp, regs, flags);
> + curr_kprobe = NULL;
> + }
> + }
> + return;
> +}
> +
> +int aggr_fault_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> +{
> + /*
> + * if we faulted "during" the execution of a user specified
> + * probe handler, invoke just that probe's fault handler
> + */
> + if (curr_kprobe && curr_kprobe->fault_handler) {
> + if (curr_kprobe->fault_handler(curr_kprobe, regs, trapnr))
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Fill in the required fields of the "manager kprobe". Replace the
> + * earlier kprobe in the hlist with the manager kprobe
> + */
> +static inline void add_aggr_kprobe(struct kprobe *ap, struct kprobe *p)
> +{
> + ap->addr = p->addr;
> + ap->opcode = p->opcode;
> + memcpy(&ap->ainsn, &p->ainsn, sizeof(struct arch_specific_insn));
> +
> + ap->pre_handler = aggr_pre_handler;
> + ap->post_handler = aggr_post_handler;
> + ap->fault_handler = aggr_fault_handler;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ap->list);
> + list_add(&p->list, &ap->list);
> +
> + INIT_HLIST_NODE(&ap->hlist);
> + hlist_del(&p->hlist);
> + hlist_add_head(&ap->hlist,
> + &kprobe_table[hash_ptr(ap->addr, KPROBE_HASH_BITS)]);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * This is the second or subsequent kprobe at the address - handle
> + * the intricacies
> + * TODO: Move kcalloc outside the spinlock
> + */
> +static int register_aggr_kprobe(struct kprobe *old_p, struct kprobe *p)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct kprobe *ap;
> +
> + if (old_p->break_handler || p->break_handler) {
> + ret = -EEXIST; /* kprobe and jprobe can't (yet) coexist */
> + goto out;
> + } else if (old_p->pre_handler == aggr_pre_handler) {
> + list_add(&p->list, &old_p->list);
> + goto out;
> + } else {
> + ap = kcalloc(1, sizeof(struct kprobe), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!ap)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + add_aggr_kprobe(ap, old_p);
> + list_add(&p->list, &ap->list);
> + }
> +out:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/* kprobe removal house-keeping routines */
> +static inline void cleanup_kprobe(struct kprobe *p, unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + *p->addr = p->opcode;
> + hlist_del(&p->hlist);
> + flush_icache_range((unsigned long) p->addr,
> + (unsigned long) p->addr + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> + arch_remove_kprobe(p);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void cleanup_aggr_kprobe(struct kprobe *old_p,
> + struct kprobe *p, unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + list_del(&p->list);
> + if (list_empty(&old_p->list)) {
> + cleanup_kprobe(old_p, flags);
> + kfree(old_p);
> + } else
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> int register_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> unsigned long flags = 0;
> + struct kprobe *old_p;
>
> if ((ret = arch_prepare_kprobe(p)) != 0) {
> goto rm_kprobe;
> }
> spin_lock_irqsave(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> - INIT_HLIST_NODE(&p->hlist);
> - if (get_kprobe(p->addr)) {
> - ret = -EEXIST;
> + old_p = get_kprobe(p->addr);
> + if (old_p) {
> + ret = register_aggr_kprobe(old_p, p);
> goto out;
> }
> - arch_copy_kprobe(p);
>
> + arch_copy_kprobe(p);
> + INIT_HLIST_NODE(&p->hlist);
> hlist_add_head(&p->hlist,
> &kprobe_table[hash_ptr(p->addr, KPROBE_HASH_BITS)]);
>
> @@ -107,13 +228,17 @@ rm_kprobe:
> void unregister_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - arch_remove_kprobe(p);
> + struct kprobe *old_p;
> +
> spin_lock_irqsave(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> - *p->addr = p->opcode;
> - hlist_del(&p->hlist);
> - flush_icache_range((unsigned long) p->addr,
> - (unsigned long) p->addr + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> + old_p = get_kprobe(p->addr);
> + if (old_p) {
> + if (old_p->pre_handler == aggr_pre_handler)
> + cleanup_aggr_kprobe(old_p, p, flags);
> + else
> + cleanup_kprobe(p, flags);
> + } else
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kprobe_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static struct notifier_block kprobe_exceptions_nb = {


--
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-20 08:12    [W:0.077 / U:3.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site