lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 linux-trace 1/8] tracing: attach eBPF programs to tracepoints and syscalls
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I think it's not a problem of bpf. An user process can be killed
> anytime while it enabed events without bpf. The only thing it should
> care is the auto-unload IMHO.

ok. I think it does indeed make sense to decouple the logic.
We can add 'auto_enable' file to achieve desired Ctrl-C behavior.
While the 'auto_enable' file is open the event will be enabled
and writes to 'enable' file will be ignored.
As soon as file closes, the event is auto-disabled.
Then user space will use 'bpf' file to attach/auto-unload
and 'auto_enable' file together.
Seem there would be a use for such 'auto_enable'
without bpf as well.

> I'm okay for not calling bpf program in NMI but not for disabling events.
>
> Suppose an user was collecting an event (including in NMI) and then
> [s]he also wanted to run a bpf program. So [s]he wrote a program
> always return 1. But after attaching the program, it didn't record
> the event in NMI.. Isn't that a problem?

ok, I think 'if (in_nmi()) return 1;' will work then, right?
Or you're thinking something else ?

> Right. I think bpf programs belong to a user process but events are
> global resource. Maybe you also need to consider attaching bpf
> program via perf (ioctl?) interface..

yes. I did. Please see my reply to Masami.
ioctl only works for tracepoints.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-29 08:41    [W:0.032 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site