On 12/18/2017 10:51 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:12:54 -0500
> Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com> wrote:
>> From: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com>
>>
>> Error injection is sloppy and very ad-hoc. BPF could fill this niche
>> perfectly with it's kprobe functionality. We could make sure errors are
>> only triggered in specific call chains that we care about with very
>> specific situations. Accomplish this with the bpf_override_funciton
>> helper. This will modify the probe'd callers return value to the
>> specified value and set the PC to an override function that simply
>> returns, bypassing the originally probed function. This gives us a nice
>> clean way to implement systematic error injection for all of our code
>> paths.
>
> OK, got it. I think the error_injectable function list should be defined
> in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c because only bpf calls it and needs to care
> the "safeness".
>
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> index 8dc0161cec8f..1ea748d682fd 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> @@ -97,3 +97,17 @@ int arch_prepare_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
>> p->ainsn.boostable = false;
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> +asmlinkage void override_func(void);
>> +asm(
>> + ".type override_func, @function\n"
>> + "override_func:\n"
>> + " ret\n"
>> + ".size override_func, .-override_func\n"
>> +);
>> +
>> +void arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> + regs->ip = (unsigned long)&override_func;
>> +}
>> +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function);
>
> Calling this as "override_function" is meaningless. This is a function
> which just return. So I think combination of just_return_func() and
> arch_bpf_override_func_just_return() will be better.
>
> Moreover, this arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c is an archtecture
> dependent implementation of kprobes, not bpf.
Josef, please work out any necessary cleanups that would still need
to be addressed based on Masami's feedback and send them as follow-up
patches, thanks.
> Hmm, arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c will be better place?
(No, it's JIT only and I'd really prefer to keep it that way, mixing
this would result in a huge mess.)
