On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 05:54:58PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > Eelco reported we can't properly access arguments if the tracing
> > program is attached to extension program.
> >
> > Having following program:
> >
> > SEC("classifier/test_pkt_md_access")
> > int test_pkt_md_access(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> >
> > with its extension:
> >
> > SEC("freplace/test_pkt_md_access")
> > int test_pkt_md_access_new(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> >
> > and tracing that extension with:
> >
> > SEC("fentry/test_pkt_md_access_new")
> > int BPF_PROG(fentry, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >
> > It's not possible to access skb argument in the fentry program,
> > with following error from verifier:
> >
> > ; int BPF_PROG(fentry, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > 0: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)
> > invalid bpf_context access off=0 size=8
> >
> > The problem is that btf_ctx_access gets the context type for the
> > traced program, which is in this case the extension.
> >
> > But when we trace extension program, we want to get the context
> > type of the program that the extension is attached to, so we can
> > access the argument properly in the trace program.
> >
> > Reported-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jo...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/btf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > index f9ac6935ab3c..37ad01c32e5a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -3859,6 +3859,14 @@ bool btf_ctx_access(int off, int size, enum
> > bpf_access_type type,
> > }
> >
> > info->reg_type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID;
> > +
> > + /* When we trace extension program, we want to get the context
> > + * type of the program that the extension is attached to, so
> > + * we can access the argument properly in the trace program.
> > + */
> > + if (tgt_prog && tgt_prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT)
> > + tgt_prog = tgt_prog->aux->linked_prog;
> > +
>
> In the discussion about multi-attach for freplace we kinda concluded[0]
> that this linked_prog pointer was going away after attach. I have this
> basically working, but need to test a bit more before posting it (see
> [1] for current status).
ok, feel free to use the test case from patch 2 ;-)
>
> But with this I guess we'll need to either do something different? Maybe
> go chase down the target via the bpf_link or something?
I'll check, could you please CC me on your next post?
thanks,
jirka
